• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I don't Get It

Middleground

Lucky Beaver!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
28,126
Reaction score
15,000
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
The former Obama-appointed U.S. Ambassador to China has said that he would not support marriage equality for gays and lesbians. "I think redefining marriage is something that would be impossible and it's something I would not be in favor of," he told MSNBC's Morning Joe in June. Still, he would reportedly continue to support civil unions: "I think we sometimes don't do an adequate job in talking about equality and in addressing fairness: hospital visitations, reciprocal beneficiary rights, insurance. There are a lot of these issues that I think we can do better with as people in the name of fairness and in the name of equality."

Michele Bachmann Meets Young LGBT Activist Elijah At Book Signing (VIDEO)_


I just don't get this. As much as I admire John Huntsman, I think he's out to lunch here. Then again, I could be wrong, so please help me out.

1) When it comes to marriage, is it not a question of religion? Should it not be the choice of each religion whether or not they want to marry gay couples?
2) Whether it's marriage or civil union, don't either one qualify as "redefining?" Why would it be too difficult to "redefine" marriage but not civil union? One would think that in the eyes of the law, legislation would have to change in either circumstance.

:doh:doh:doh
 
So he's to the left of the position Obama ran on.

In the end it matters none what position any of them take as it's the courts that will decide this.
 
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.
 
Michele Bachmann Meets Young LGBT Activist Elijah At Book Signing (VIDEO)_


I just don't get this. As much as I admire John Huntsman, I think he's out to lunch here. Then again, I could be wrong, so please help me out.

1) When it comes to marriage, is it not a question of religion? Should it not be the choice of each religion whether or not they want to marry gay couples?
2) Whether it's marriage or civil union, don't either one qualify as "redefining?" Why would it be too difficult to "redefine" marriage but not civil union? One would think that in the eyes of the law, legislation would have to change in either circumstance.

:doh:doh:doh

What the hell, man?

This quote here sounds like he's in support of gay marriage. But - for no reason (other than the ridiculous religious argument) - he's not.
I think we sometimes don't do an adequate job in talking about equality and in addressing fairness: hospital visitations, reciprocal beneficiary rights, insurance.
So he's just lying about wanting equality in the world and still wants prejudice and bias but thinks we're too stupid to notice where his views really fall.

You know: if they just let gay couple smarry and have the same rights as straight couples who are married then none of these other things like hospital visitation, reciprocal beneficiary rights and insurance would even have to be haggled over separately for gays. . . instead he's wanting ot make things by far more complicated :roll: yeah - that's what we need - more red tape.
 
Last edited:
What the hell, man?

This quote here sounds like he's in support of gay marriage. But - for no reason (other than the ridiculous religious argument) - he's not.

So he's just lying about wanting equality in the world and still wants prejudice and bias but thinks we're too stupid to notice where his views really fall.

You know: if they just let gay couple smarry and have the same rights as straight couples who are married then none of these other things like hospital visitation, reciprocal beneficiary rights and insurance would even have to be haggled over separately for gays. . . instead he's wanting ot make things by far more complicated :roll: yeah - that's what we need - more red tape.

my thoughts exactly.
 
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 don't find it obvious. When the marriage is ended people property, children and the sort are problems they can deal with on their own, so I find it disingenuous it say you need government to help . Everyone knows they can work things out and come to sort of understanding on who is going to take what all their own. The problem isn't that they can't, its that they won't. One of the benefits of property is the ability to say what you will do with it, so having the government say someone else gets what is yours is a violation of property rights. Therefore, I do not agree with the government deciding such matters and feel it is your responsibility to take a stand in give up your powers to whatever it might on your own to your spouse or for them to give it up to give to you. It is between you two, and that is it. You have to solve it. It shouldn't be this endless toilet paper parade people make it out to be, just like when someone dies in your family people shouldn't be little children and start to bit each others heads off. Be mature and deal with it. What is the problem isn't the process, it isn't the elements in play, it is the emotions in play. If people would just deal with things in their life instead of going, OH ME, I need help, I doubt anyone would support such nonsense as having government decide property holdings.

I find children much the same, but slightly different. Why should a parent have less access to the child because the state says so? Where do they have the right? It is my child, and unless I did something wrong to hurt the child I can't imagine why I accept their presence. Taking the rights away from people that did nothing wrong IS not a power we should give to the government. This is a private matter and should be treated as such.

The truth is people only support this kind of nonsense for victory and convenience.
 
Last edited:
I don't find it obvious. When the marriage is ended people property, children and the sort are problems they can deal with on their own, so I find it disingenuous it say you need government to help . Everyone knows they can work things out and come to sort of understanding on who is going to take what all their own. The problem isn't that they can't, its that won't. One of the benefits of property is the ability to say what you will do with it, so having the government say someone else gets what is yours is a violation of property rights. Therefore, I do not agree with the government deciding such matters and feel it is your responsibility to take a stand in give up your powers to whatever it might on your own to your spouse or for them to give it up to give to you. It is between you two, and that is it. You have to solve it. It shouldn't be this endless toilet paper parade people make it out to be, just like when someone dies in your family people shouldn't be little children and start to bit each others heads off. Be mature and deal with it. What is the problem isn't the process, it isn't the elements in play, it is the emotions in play. If people would just deal with things in their life instead of going, OH ME, I need help, I doubt anyone would support such nonsense as having government decide property holdings.

I find children much the same, but slightly different. Why should a parent have less access to the child because the state says so? Where do they have the right? It is my child, and unless I did something wrong to hurt the child I can't imagine why I accept their presence. Taking the rights away from people that did nothing wrong IS not a power we should give to the government. This is a private matter and should be treated as such.

The truth is people only support this kind of nonsense for victory and convenience.

I think your view would be correct if it were really so simple. People, particularly in a dispute, tend to not think rationally and need a third party to take the objective position.
 
I think your view would be correct if it were really so simple. People, particularly in a dispute, tend to not think rationally and need a third party to take the objective position.

Like I said they are children. If they can't do something on their own I don't see why someone that is rational has to be subject to losing property rights, child access and the sort because of them. It's ridiculous.
 
Michele Bachmann Meets Young LGBT Activist Elijah At Book Signing (VIDEO)_


I just don't get this. As much as I admire John Huntsman, I think he's out to lunch here. Then again, I could be wrong, so please help me out.

1) When it comes to marriage, is it not a question of religion? Should it not be the choice of each religion whether or not they want to marry gay couples?
2) Whether it's marriage or civil union, don't either one qualify as "redefining?" Why would it be too difficult to "redefine" marriage but not civil union? One would think that in the eyes of the law, legislation would have to change in either circumstance.

:doh:doh:doh

My thoughts on this and the aline somewhat with JH stance on this albeit one small difference.

Civil Unions are the legal necessity for equal rights under the law ... let each church decide Holy Matrimony. JH personal belief system would not consider it Holy Matrimony. Yet, any church, religion or cult a couple decides to become a member ... can decide to recognize the civil union as Holy Matrimony or not and gay couples will have the right to pick and choose their own religious or otherwise beliefs.

Ahhh if we had any proof the character Jesus Christ walked the earth ... I wonder what he would think of this issue.

Just because a candidate does not belong to cult or religion that views gay marriage as Holy Matrimony does not indicate he/she is discriminating against gays or would not support legal rights under the law.
 
Last edited:
Like I said they are children. If they can't do something on their own I don't see why someone that is rational has to be subject to losing property rights, child access and the sort because of them. It's ridiculous.

What if one parent decides to never let the other parent see the children just to spite them? Someone has to step in.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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:
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 :shrug:

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:
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.

I agree that the government should entirely get out of the marriage business. In fact, most courts now treat unmarried couples - straight or gay - exactly the same as married when it comes to property and children if in a marriage-like relationship.

To the extent "marriage" matters to government, it should on be the economic and parenting relationship that the government has any interest in. The concept of "marriage" itself isn't a government concern, or at least shouldn't be.

Unfortunately, red flag social issues - gay marriage, flag burning, abortion - tend to consume our politics when actually very little of anything of those issues change regardless of who is elected.

The gay marriage issue is becoming a real handicap to the Republican candidates, but one they are stuck with. Because "flip flop" has become a dirty word in politics, modifying their position is all but impossible. The notable exception is Ron Paul, but his lack of anti-gay talk put up a wall between himself and the religious right, which also has much overlapping with the Tea Party.

Even among those who oppose gay marriage itself, most are not vehemently anti-gay and don't like strong homophobic declarations - putting candidates like Bachman in a real box. But for her extreme social stances she would be a far more viable candidate now.

Herman Cain proved that Republicans really aren't the bigots they oft portrayed to be because 'Republican" and far-religious-rightwing and Tea-Party are not the same. The latter are only vocal fringes of the Republicans.

The gay rights movement has won. There is only the uncomfortable lag time between now and then that is accepted.
 
Last edited:
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.
And I'm absolutely FINE that we disagree with me on that issue. Its somewhat comforting to know that while you and I disagree, Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama agree with me.
 
Because equal protection under the law should trump your personal feelings about gays, if that is how you feel :shrug:

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.
And of course you are an intelligent individual and recognize that not everyone shares that opinion with you. But we can still like, appreciate, even RESPECT President Obama and all those other democrats who are so stupid and bigoted and hate filled that they might believe otherwise...right?
 
Because the government is there to defend and protect our rights. . . more so: the judicial system is there to defend and protect our rights.

I agree we should recognize the rights of parents but I question the avenue you have accepted. I find it far more dangerous to your freedom going to government solving the issue than the issue itself. Instead of the issue being solved and living on, now the person that took the kid mostly out of anger is jail and/or will have to go through hoops just to get back to where they could otherwise be outside of using government. Not a solution if you ask me. The fact is this is far more deciding rights than protecting rights and for that reason I do not support it.
 
Last edited:
And of course you are an intelligent individual and recognize that not everyone shares that opinion with you. But we can still like, appreciate, even RESPECT President Obama and all those other democrats who are so stupid and bigoted and hate filled that they might believe otherwise...right?

Sure, I respect other people and their opinions. But I personally just think the whole argument behind "gay civil unions" vice "gay marriage" is faulty - and numerous folks on this board has demonstrated why multiple times. And the cold, hard, truth is that President Obama has been woefully passive on the issue of gay rights, and he doesn't even support gay marriage (not publicly at least). So yeah, he and many other Dems are behind the 8 ball on this.
 
Back
Top Bottom