- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 12,605
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
The law of the land is very simple: Separate but equal is not equal. There is no way around this.
One of the common arugements I've seen from social conservatives is that the creation of a civil union should answer the questions regarding gay marriage.
Typically, the general idea is this:
- The civil union will contain the same benefits as a heterosexual marriage
- The term 'marriage' will only be recognized as between one man and one woman
So, dear reader, my question to you is: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise with regards to the issue of Same-Sex marriage?
I'll try to have the answers as applicable as possible.
What I said was that gay people should be able to choose between groom/bride, groom/groom, bride/bride, basically any combination of the two. You claim that I said the EXACT opposite. That is just annoying.
And even if you could make them identical, what exactly then is the point. Marriage in everything but name is marriage, so call it what it is..
It's the same people who don't think the government is responsible enough to manage tax money, but is responsible enough to determine the beginning of life (abortion) and facilitate the end of it (death penalty). The same people who think people shouldn't be so "sensitive" about racial epithets because they're "just words", but who think the word "marriage" is sacred.10 scariest words in the English language:
"I'm from the government and I'm here to protect marriage".
It's hilarious that many of the same people who think Ronald Reagan is the bees knees are so quick to think of the government as something which can protect marriage. :lol:
It's selfish in the fact that they want to change terms and concepts in order to suit themselves and to hell with what anyone else feels about marriage (which is VERY important to many people), when they can accept equality in the form of civil unions. That way, people who value marriage and the terms and concepts that go with that can be happy, and the gay people can reside with their partners legally and with all of the same benefits of a marriage but just without the term "marriage."
Again, if they want to change the concept of marriage, then they really want a civil union and not a marriage at all.
How is it unconstitutional? If we allow gays to unite in a manner that would be the same as marriage except with a different name, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
I have no doubt that what I said angers some people against SSM. I'm not worried about that. As far as "denigrating" religious people, I don't seek to do that at all and many religious people have the same views as I do. I want same-sex marriage to be legal and I want gay/bisexual people to be treated equal. If anybody is upset by that and how I present my opinion, oh well.
Ah, thanks man.There's a few reasons I love you TPD, and this is one of them.
Why would homosexuals want to adopt a tradition that has historically been exclusive to heterosexuals? Wouldn't that in and of itself be demeaning? One would think that they would want to maintain their own identity. To be independent of heterosexual traditions. To also have their own definition of permanent partnership. A stand alone definition.No, because it's still the government relegating homosexual persons to second-class status. Whether you use the word marriage or union isn't as important as using the same word for both straight and gay couples.
1. I agree that Democrat politicians never did enough in support of same-sex marriage. For the most part, they started "speaking out" when it because "popular" (for lack of a better word) to do so. This has always been one of my main criticisms of Obama. I always figured he supported, but that he was just too much of a politician (read: coward) to speak up until he felt it was politically safe to do so. I'm happy he finally came out in support of it, but I don't forget his previous official anti-SSM stance. The same goes for Bill Clinton and many other Democrat officials.First off, I'll say that I could care less if the Fed Govt passes pro-LGBT legislation regarding marriage. Does not affect me one way or the other. I will not campaign for it but I refuse to campaign against it as well. I have a question, however: If passing legislation for SSM rights is the "RIGHT" thing to do.............why is it that so many political leaders at the Federal level (even those on the Left) seem to "shy away" from openly defending it? We have one of the more Liberal Presidents and Supreme Courts in recent history. We've also experienced a Democratic Congress with a super majority within the past five years. We've had arguably the most Left-leaning Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leaders ever...........and yet, we've failed to push SSM legislation through with any real degree of success? Why is this? Why have our political leaders resorted to nothing more effective than ballot initiatives at the state level where most are doomed to fail?
While it's all too easy for the pro-SSM crowd to pass blame directly upon the shoulders of organized churches and on the "religious right" I will propose another theory. The Democratic Party and the political "Left" in general has failed their own base of support. Why?..........Well, for the sake of political expediency of course! Politicians (both Left and Right) are primarily concerned with TWO THINGS only................gaining and maintainting political power. Smart politicians realize that the majority of American voters are still opposed to the Fed Govt. legislating morality inside marriages and bedrooms. Smart politicians know that to take strong stances on such divisive issues is a great way to commit political suicide.
So, my point, in reference to a few earlier posts, is this: While relying on the Fed Govt to "protect" the institution of marriage seems a ridiculous proposition.....................the pro-SSM crowd relying on the Fed Govt to do what they believe is "right" and "humanistically good" is also just as silly a proposition. When are we going to wise up and stop relying on govt to "fix everything" from Capitol Hill or from the bench of the SCOTUS? When dealing with the Fed govt the policy of "hoping for the best but expecting the worst" is generally the safest approach. :shrug:
One of the common arugements I've seen from social conservatives is that the creation of a civil union should answer the questions regarding gay marriage.
Typically, the general idea is this:
- The civil union will contain the same benefits as a heterosexual marriage
- The term 'marriage' will only be recognized as between one man and one woman
So, dear reader, my question to you is: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise with regards to the issue of Same-Sex marriage?
I'll try to have the answers as applicable as possible.
I don't think the gov't should be involved in any way, shape, or form. The only thing the gov't should be involved in is a contract that is voluntarily entered into by any two adults, regardless of sex. This would be used to settle child custody disputes, property disputes, and settle the tax filing issue that is always brought up. The old Justice of the Peace marriages need to go away. Marriage should be conducted by churches and private entities, not by the gov't.