Page 107 of 211 FirstFirst ... 75797105106107108109117157207 ... LastLast
Results 1,061 to 1,070 of 2102

Thread: [W:363]accepting gay as normal

  1. #1061
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:27 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    85,449

    Re: [W:363]accepting gay as normal

    Quote Originally Posted by ArtemisBarca View Post
    No I’m just willing to concede a nonsense point that is irrelevant to the larger issue..


    Nuclear family= mom, dad, kid..

    Modern family= all the other flavors..

    Mormon family= dad, mom, mom , mom, mom, mom, mom , kids... lol

    If the dad of the nuclear family is a pedophile raping and beating the wife an kids... it is still a nuclear family because , if the family being is garbage or not is not being addressed in the definition...

    Biological (usually) Mom, dad and kid , but mom is a crackhead turning tricks for drug money behind the back of her SUPER hen pecked husband???

    Still a nuclear family..




    Modern family is perfect, it is still a modern family????

    Modern family are abusive alcoholics???

    Still a modern family.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You are still wrong but I appreciate your humour! Seriously...

  2. #1062
    User
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Last Seen
    04-02-20 @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    21

    Re: [W:363]accepting gay as normal

    Quote Originally Posted by ArtemisBarca View Post
    No I am not..

    I just don’t think the propaganda victory for conservatives, “covered the spread” on the “upgrade” from civil unions to marriage..

    The legality side actually mattered, insisting states expand the definition of marriage is a social/emotional/propaganda/moral victory.. I’m not Sure which is fairly applied as all could be considered positive , negative or neutral.. I mean them in the neutral sense.


    I am not religious.. for me marriage and civil unions would be a actually be morally and legally equivalent, rather than me just saying that , then whispering slurs under my breath..


    I think changing the definitions of long standing words is a mistake guaranteed to be easily propagandized into over reach...


    Sometimes the moral victory is not worth the functional price paid...

    I could be totally wrong, god knows there is no way to know, but I bet if we had gone Civil Unions or some other title people decided on as a descriptive term. The anti-gay marriage movement loses 15% of its donations..



    CONCLUSION) conservatives are so easily propagandized that ANY “low hanging fruit” concerning government/liberal overreach will get beaten like a dead horse..


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Ya know, from a legal and technical standpoint, Civil Unions in theory COULD work. Disregarding the separate-but-unequal terminology of Civil Unions versus marriage, there is a more fundamental reason as to why civil unions were destined to fail in practice. It would have required doing the same legislation for marriage all over again for civil unions.

    This might not sound hard - just basically copy and paste - but there was effectively zero political motivation to do so. In most of the few state legislatures that did sign civil unions into law, they gave gay couples some of the big ticket items such as death certificates, living wills, and hospital visits, but they largely left out thousands of other small things that are less talked about but were nonetheless still important. Because there is SO SO SO much stuff that marriage encompasses legally, it would have taken massive amounts of legislation to do the same for civil marriages.

    And there simply was and is never going to be enough political influence and push for politicians to legislate everything that would be needed to make civil unions and marriage be legally equivalent. Even now I couldn't see it be done in states as liberal as Hawaii or Vermont simply because it would such a huge draw on resources for state legislatures.

    The only real way to avoid this legal nightmare would be to just include same-sex couples in the group of people who are able to get a marriage license. Some states such as Illinois and Minnesota signed bills into laws to accomplish this. But in most states it was done either through state Supreme courts, Federal courts, or through the decision of Obergefell v Hodges in SCOTUS in 2015.

    But in theory as a hypothetical, yes it would have been possible, but in practice it was never going to happen. (And nothing you say is going to convince me that states like Alabama and Oklahoma would have jumped on board the civil union train).

  3. #1063
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:28 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    57,894

    Re: [W:363]accepting gay as normal

    Quote Originally Posted by CBuckets View Post
    Ya know, from a legal and technical standpoint, Civil Unions in theory COULD work. Disregarding the separate-but-unequal terminology of Civil Unions versus marriage, there is a more fundamental reason as to why civil unions were destined to fail in practice. It would have required doing the same legislation for marriage all over again for civil unions.

    This might not sound hard - just basically copy and paste - but there was effectively zero political motivation to do so. In most of the few state legislatures that did sign civil unions into law, they gave gay couples some of the big ticket items such as death certificates, living wills, and hospital visits, but they largely left out thousands of other small things that are less talked about but were nonetheless still important. Because there is SO SO SO much stuff that marriage encompasses legally, it would have taken massive amounts of legislation to do the same for civil marriages.

    And there simply was and is never going to be enough political influence and push for politicians to legislate everything that would be needed to make civil unions and marriage be legally equivalent. Even now I couldn't see it be done in states as liberal as Hawaii or Vermont simply because it would such a huge draw on resources for state legislatures.

    The only real way to avoid this legal nightmare would be to just include same-sex couples in the group of people who are able to get a marriage license. Some states such as Illinois and Minnesota signed bills into laws to accomplish this. But in most states it was done either through state Supreme courts, Federal courts, or through the decision of Obergefell v Hodges in SCOTUS in 2015.

    But in theory as a hypothetical, yes it would have been possible, but in practice it was never going to happen. (And nothing you say is going to convince me that states like Alabama and Oklahoma would have jumped on board the civil union train).
    Nevada did it simply with one law. They said anywhere the word marriage was in law or state policy then civil unions would also apply.


    Done

  4. #1064
    Horrible Bastard Hamish Howl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Tucson
    Last Seen
    05-21-20 @ 11:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,347

    Re: [W:363]accepting gay as normal

    Quote Originally Posted by Da Mole View Post
    How did Sodom and Gomorrah work out?
    I see you've never actually read the bible.
    Watching the live action version of Jerry Pournelle's "Crazy Eddie" concept.

  5. #1065
    User
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Last Seen
    04-02-20 @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    21

    Re: [W:363]accepting gay as normal

    Quote Originally Posted by vegas giants View Post
    Nevada did it simply with one law. They said anywhere the word marriage was in law or state policy then civil unions would also apply.


    Done
    Close. There were a few things that were left out from that law but the most prominent one was that it didn't require government or private employers to extend health care benefits to the partner of an employee, even if that employer did provide health benefits to different sex spouses of employees. And when that bill was passed by the legislature, it still got vetoed by the state's then-governor and was only overridden by the slimmest possible margins for a veto override. Additionally since that law was passed in 2009, it's provisions had effectively no legal standing both for the federal government and with other states. So a person's domestic partnership would basically be recognized by Nevada and only Nevada and if you were to enter a different state, then your domestic partnership would not be recognized.

  6. #1066
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rolesville, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,609

    Re: [W:363]accepting gay as normal

    Quote Originally Posted by dixon01767 View Post
    The statistics. Children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult when compared to children born to their married mother and father.
    Single mothers are not the only alternative. I specifically mentioned extended families. And there are other family types as well.

    Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #1067
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rolesville, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,609

    Re: [W:363]accepting gay as normal

    Quote Originally Posted by dixon01767 View Post
    That would apply to any two consenting adults who desire the tax breaks of marriage,... joint health care coverage from employers. Or joint custody of any children. Or anything pertaining to written wills and property. What would be the justification for such discrimination? I know a life long couple in their 60s, together since their teens, 3 grown kids. She is an enthusiastic feminist and atheist that views marriage as some evil patriarchal institution imposed by religion to empower men over women. What justification does government have to discriminate against them for all those benefits you speak of. If government wants to discriminate they must have some justification for doing so.
    The couple you describe is allowed to get married, but chooses not to. Just like the woman who refuses to join the military is not being discriminated against by the military for her not wanting to join.

    Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #1068
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Last Seen
    05-15-20 @ 09:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,995

    Re: [W:363]accepting gay as normal

    Quote Originally Posted by CBuckets View Post
    Simple. They don't want what the government is offering them. By definition, someone (or in this case the government) can't be discriminating against you if you are refusing that person's offer. If the government says it is offering a certain benefit to everyone who asks, but then refuses to give that benefit to you when you ask and says that it isn't offering that benefit to you for X arbitrary reason, then that would be discrimination.
    They do want what the gov is offering and that's not justification for the discrimination.

  9. #1069
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:28 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    57,894

    Re: [W:363]accepting gay as normal

    Quote Originally Posted by dixon01767 View Post
    They do want what the gov is offering and that's not justification for the discrimination.
    Actually it is

  10. #1070
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Last Seen
    05-15-20 @ 09:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,995

    Re: [W:363]accepting gay as normal

    Quote Originally Posted by vegas giants View Post
    Actually it is
    Could use the exact same argument regarding gays before marriage was extended to them. They choose not to enter a marriage with someone of the opposite sex but are free to do so. Its their choice.

Posting Permissions

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