I don't Get It

Middleground said:

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?

Click to expand...

Someone may have pointed this out already, but whether or not churches recognize same-sex marriage is not at issue. What is at issue is whether or not the government will do so. Churches are, and ever have been free to marry whomever they please.

Middleground said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hunstman is echoing the concerns of various (frankly) reactionary elements that are afraid of the precedent that would be set by blanket government acceptance of same-sex marriage. It's not a rational position.

VanceMack said:

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.

Click to expand...

Do you not believe in the separation of church and state?

And so what that Obama and Clinton agree with your position? Does that automatically make your stance correct?

Aderleth said:

Hunstman is echoing the concerns of various (frankly) reactionary elements that are afraid of the precedent that would be set by blanket government acceptance of same-sex marriage. It's not a rational position.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Maybe they should take a look at Canada and see that after 10 years of gay marriage rights, we have not turned into a bunch of low life heathens. If you were to ask me, I'd say that we have become much more fabuleth! :2razz:

Henrin said:

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.

Click to expand...

You're fooling yourself when you think that people are going to behave maturely and responsibly all the time if they're just expected to. When people are mature the government / judiciary doens't need to step in because they are capable and willing to handle life on their own.

But many aren't - many never will be . . . and so, yes, that's what the judiciary is for.

I don't know why you're arguing otherwise. You seem to be wanting something that actually exists for many people - but not for everyone (responsibility and civility)

Middleground said:

Do you not believe in the separation of church and state?

And so what that Obama and Clinton agree with your position? Does that automatically make your stance correct?

Click to expand...

Obviously I believe it to be correct...otherwise I would change it. Just as you believe yours to be correct, nor do I expect you to change it. Again...cant help but wonder why Huntsman's position causes such perplexed ideation that it inspires you to start a thread, yet...none with regard to Obama's position. Ever the case...always an issue with the conservative candidate. Liberal...meh...BFD...

Middleground said:

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!).

Click to expand...

Yep. Marriage should be available to any couple (or group! Hell, why does it matter to me as long as there is only one spousal tax deduction) who wants the legal priveleges and obligations of marriage.

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.

Click to expand...

It's politician speak for "I really favor ending the unconstitutional ban on homosexual marriage recognition under the law, but I'm not about to alienate 3/4 of the GOP voters out there by saying so. OTOH, I need those independent voters and disillusioned democrat votes to win, so I'll give them the secret wink to show them that I'm really on their side."

See, you just have to speak the language. :lol:

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.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see more of him and learn more about him. What a dismal bunch of creeps the GOP has offered up for our voting pleasure.

VanceMack said:

Obviously I believe it to be correct...otherwise I would change it. Just as you believe yours to be correct, nor do I expect you to change it. Again...cant help but wonder why Huntsman's position causes such perplexed ideation that it inspires you to start a thread, yet...none with regard to Obama's position. Ever the case...always an issue with the conservative candidate. Liberal...meh...BFD...

Click to expand...

Would it make you feel better that I think Obama is being a dick on this issue? I started this thread because I had seen this quote (today!) by Huntsman and wanted to start a discussion because I was perplexed with his idea of marriage and civil unions.

I seriously think you should stop thinking about this as a right vs left issue and more as a human rights one. That's the way that I see it.

Middleground said:

Would it make you feel better that I think Obama is being a dick on this issue? I started this thread because I had seen this quote (today!) by Huntsman and wanted to start a discussion because I was perplexed with his idea of marriage and civil unions.

I seriously think you should stop thinking about this as a right vs left issue and more as a human rights one. That's the way that I see it.

Click to expand...

I DONT think this as a right or left issue...I know a whole lot of people (including a few gay folks) on the 'left' that disagree with changing the laws as well as right leaning folks. My point is pretty straightforward. This is ALWAYS brought up as an issue regarding the conservative candidate and it is ALWAYS glossed over with regard to the liberal candidates. Its great that you hold Obama in such disdain...yet...5 years after he has burst onto the scene...thats crickets chirping you hear.

And I respect how you see it. And when the day comes where gay marriage is made legal (and I believe it will) the sun will still go up the next day and life will still go on. I will disagree with the change of the law when it is made...but...life does go on.

Middleground said:

Do you not believe in the separation of church and state?

And so what that Obama and Clinton agree with your position? Does that automatically make your stance correct?

Click to expand...

No, I think his point was that whenever a Republican makes a comment like this people are amazed at the contradictory logic and often times (not in this case as much) with other candidates you hear things like "homophobic" for feeling like this should be the stance, or that the person is labeled a bigot or hates gays or against gay rights or something of the sort yet there doesn't seem to be near this outcry in regards to Democratic politicians who feel this way. Suggesting he perhaps can't remember ever hearing it suggested Obama was homophobic for not liking gays, or that Clinton was a bigot for support for something like DOMA or DADT while expecting a Republican who did those same things would likely be lambasted.

Zyphlin said:

No, I think his point was that whenever a Republican makes a comment like this people are amazed at the contradictory logic and often times (not in this case as much) with other candidates you hear things like "homophobic" for feeling like this should be the stance, or that the person is labeled a bigot or hates gays or against gay rights or something of the sort yet there doesn't seem to be near this outcry in regards to Democratic politicians who feel this way. Suggesting he perhaps can't remember ever hearing it suggested Obama was homophobic for not liking gays, or that Clinton was a bigot for support for something like DOMA or DADT while expecting a Republican who did those same things would likely be lambasted.

Click to expand...

No (well - for me no) what was annoying was that he came across as if he's on the edge and seemed outright two-faced about it. On one hand supporting it and on the other hand not - like he was on the fence. Maybe it was just the words he used in those quotes.

Zyphlin said:

No, I think his point was that whenever a Republican makes a comment like this people are amazed at the contradictory logic and often times (not in this case as much) with other candidates you hear things like "homophobic" for feeling like this should be the stance, or that the person is labeled a bigot or hates gays or against gay rights or something of the sort yet there doesn't seem to be near this outcry in regards to Democratic politicians who feel this way. Suggesting he perhaps can't remember ever hearing it suggested Obama was homophobic for not liking gays, or that Clinton was a bigot for support for something like DOMA or DADT while expecting a Republican who did those same things would likely be lambasted.

Click to expand...

Auuuyup. This. I'm not at all interested in discussing the pro's and cons of homosexuality and gay marriage again. Everything has been said. But the way it suddenly becomes outrageous...inconceivable...and often labelled with GOP candidates yet ignored or if at all only slightly dusted when it is a democrat is pretty telling.

So many people vote for a president based on some preconception about how his party feels about some pet(ty) hot button social issue. And this is stupid, because 1) it's irrelevant to the presidency and 2) in reality none of the folks at that level give a flying ****.

Social issue voters would be better off supporting the strong small-government candidates, who would be most likely to support whatever system left stupid social issues like theirs to the states.