Athletes in favor of gay marriage rights

#226
#226
volinbham said:
Wouldn't sanctioning marriage be getting into someone's life?

I would argue that those supporting gay marriage (using the word marriage) are asking government to get INTO the lives of gay couples.
Click to expand...

how so? gay people don't have to get married if they don't want to.
 
#227
#227
droski said:
how so? gay people don't have to get married if they don't want to.
Click to expand...

exactly - demanding government recognition is asking the government to participate in their union. It's not really getting into their lives but not having gay marriage isn't either - that's my point.

IOW - not wanting the government to offer gay marriage is not the same as wanting the government to be in our lives.

As I said in the other thread, if the government made it illegal to be in a gay relationship then that would be the government getting involved in our personal lives.
 
#228
#228
volinbham said:
exactly - demanding government recognition is asking the government to participate in their union. It's not really getting into their lives but not having gay marriage isn't either - that's my point.

IOW - not wanting the government to offer gay marriage is not the same as wanting the government to be in our lives.

As I said in the other thread, if the government made it illegal to be in a gay relationship then that would be the government getting involved in our personal lives.
Click to expand...

so should we ban straight marriage as well?
 
#231
#231
KiffinKiller said:
Are you saying we should lose the tax benifits, etc? Not sure I understood.
Click to expand...

Ideally, it would be nice to lose the current tax code. Regardless, I think it is neither right nor justifiable for certain persons to receive tax benefits due to their lifestyle choices. The government should not be economically inducing persons to choose to get married and/or produce offspring.
 
#232
#232
Not sure which thread about homosexuality to put this pic in, but it made me laugh

f2e1e1b8.jpg
 
#234
#234
droski said:
so should we ban straight marriage as well?
Click to expand...


No - I'm not talking about that at all.

I'm simply arguing why the claim that people against gay marriage are guilty of wanting the government to get involved in our personal lives isn't relevant because marriage recognition is by definition government getting involved in our personal lives.

It's an irrelevant argument for gay marriage.
 
#235
#235
volinbham said:
No - I'm not talking about that at all.

I'm simply arguing why the claim that people against gay marriage are guilty of wanting the government to get involved in our personal lives isn't relevant because marriage recognition is by definition government getting involved in our personal lives.

It's an irrelevant argument for gay marriage.
Click to expand...

It is the desire to be equally involved. The government is already involved in marriage, and the implications of a marriage license that come with such involvement.

Not getting involved in personal aspects of life is a request to be equally involved, until such a time as is able to remove all involvement, which will never occur.
 
#236
#236
volinbham said:
No - I'm not talking about that at all.

I'm simply arguing why the claim that people against gay marriage are guilty of wanting the government to get involved in our personal lives isn't relevant because marriage recognition is by definition government getting involved in our personal lives.

It's an irrelevant argument for gay marriage.
Click to expand...

It's about the status for various rights and the tax benefits. As has already been said. It's a completely relevant argument to say they are unequal.
 
#237
#237
IPorange said:
It's about the status for various rights and the tax benefits. As has already been said. It's a completely relevant argument to say they are unequal.
Click to expand...

It can even been taken a step further, and say that the request to stay out of the personal life is not a request to allow, but a request to not disallow.

It is not a request to do something, as bham implies, but a request to, instead, do nothing differently when the license is filed.

In other words, stay out = get out of the way.
 
#238
#238
Sorry I started this - it's a response to a post that said the same people that want govt to stay out of our lives are against gay marriage.

I think that is a tangental argument at best.
 
#239
#239
fl0at said:
It can even been taken a step further, and say that the request to stay out of the personal life is not a request to allow, but a request to not disallow.

It is not a request to do something, as bham implies, but a request to, instead, do nothing differently when the license is filed.

In other words, stay out = get out of the way.
Click to expand...

yet the license itself is government involvement in our personal lives. the argument for gay marriage is for equal government involvement in our lives. It is not an argument against government involvement in the manner that sodomy laws, no smoking laws, etc. would be. That's all I'm saying.

Put another way, the government involvement angle isn't a very effective argument IMHO.
 
#240
#240
Let's look at Affirmative Action. is the fact that these laws don't favor white males akin to government involvement in our lives? they are laws created by the government to do something that applies to some races/genders but not others. Are proponents of AA advocating more government involvement in our lives?
 
#241
#241
volinbham said:
yet the license itself is government involvement in our personal lives. the argument for gay marriage is for equal government involvement in our lives. It is not an argument against government involvement in the manner that sodomy laws, no smoking laws, etc. would be. That's all I'm saying.

Put another way, the government involvement angle isn't a very effective argument IMHO.
Click to expand...

You're playing a game of technicalities and semantics. It's an argument for non-preferential treatment, for a government that isn't treating people differently due to orientation.
 
#242
#242
volinbham said:
Let's look at Affirmative Action. is the fact that these laws don't favor white males akin to government involvement in our lives? they are laws created by the government to do something that applies to some races/genders but not others. Are proponents of AA advocating more government involvement in our lives?
Click to expand...

yes they are but AA is more around preferential treatment is it not? I would think this is different than the gay marriage argument

(of course I didn't read back very far so I could be off base here)
 
#243
#243
volinbham said:
yet the license itself is government involvement in our personal lives. the argument for gay marriage is for equal government involvement in our lives. It is not an argument against government involvement in the manner that sodomy laws, no smoking laws, etc. would be. That's all I'm saying.

Put another way, the government involvement angle isn't a very effective argument IMHO.
Click to expand...

it's the benefits tht are the core here. not the piece of paper.
 
#244
#244
IPorange said:
You're playing a game of technicalities and semantics. It's an argument for non-preferential treatment, for a government that isn't treating people differently due to orientation.
Click to expand...

aren't we all playing this game between civil unions and marriage?

non-preferential treatment isn't the same a government involvement in our personal lives.

Take Medicaid. Some people get it because of their condition. If we allow all to have Medicaid we've eliminated preferential treatment but increased government involvement.

I still haven't seen a good argument why civil unions with the same legal benefits as marriage are insufficient or somehow perpetuate persecution.
 
#245
#245
BloodRUNZOrange said:
i mean i really dont think people care that much. i know i dont. its amazing to me the "party that wants government out of their lives" always want to pass laws that get involved with other people lives..
Click to expand...

You talking about the Rob BPV to pay BloodRUNZorange program?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#247
#247
droski said:
it's the benefits tht are the core here. not the piece of paper.
Click to expand...


on that I agree and still see no reason why for so many it's the piece of paper and term (marriage) or nothing.

civil unions can deliver all the legal benefits - everyone of them.
 
#248
#248
volinbham said:
on that I agree and still see no reason why for so many it's the piece of paper and term (marriage) or nothing.

civil unions can deliver all the legal benefits - everyone of them.
Click to expand...

well the term definetely means something. i doubt my wife would have been all that excited if i proposed and asked her to join me in a civil union.
 
#249
#249
droski said:
i guess i'm failing to see why we need to make the distinction.
Click to expand...


I would argue that for the same reason the symbolism of the word is important to homosexual couples it is important to heterosexual couples. Why force one group to alter that to appease another group? And why is that the role of the government?

On the rights I with you 100%. However, I can see why the symbolism is important to both sides. I see the meaning as owned by society - that meaning is changing.

I'd support full civil unions for all right now. If people vote to call that marriage then I'm cool with that too. If they vote not to call that marriage that's fine as well.
 
#250
#250
volinbham said:
I would argue that for the same reason the symbolism of the word is important to homosexual couples it is important to heterosexual couples. Why force one group to alter that to appease another group? And why is that the role of the government?
Click to expand...

it doesn't alter that meaning in my mind. if homosexuals get married i'm no less married tomorrow than i am today.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top