Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: I don't Get It

  1. #1
    Tavern Bartender
    Pussy Grabbin' Beaver
    Middleground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada's Capital
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,458
    Blog Entries
    1

    I don't Get It

    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.

    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.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: I don't Get It

    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.

  3. #3
    Professor
    Baralis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MO
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,394
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: I don't Get It

    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.

  4. #4
    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 Middleground View Post
    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.

    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 yeah - that's what we need - more red tape.
    Last edited by Aunt Spiker; 12-06-11 at 03:53 PM.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  5. #5
    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 Aunt Spiker View Post
    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 yeah - that's what we need - more red tape.
    my thoughts exactly.
    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

  6. #6
    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
    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 by Henrin; 12-06-11 at 04:12 PM.

  7. #7
    Professor
    Baralis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MO
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,394
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: I don't Get It

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    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
    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.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    01-05-17 @ 02:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,479

    Re: I don't Get It

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    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.

    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 by Turin; 12-06-11 at 04:32 PM.

  10. #10
    Professor
    Baralis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MO
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,394
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: I don't Get It

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    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.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •