Athletes in favor of gay marriage rights

#251
#251
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 is not. This is why I think the government should back away from both marriages and civil unions. If one person wants to change their last name, their PNoK, authorize a general PoA, etc., then let them. Do not confine this to any type of social institution though and do not make the process more or less stringent dependent upon the individuals involved.
 
#252
#252
droski said:
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.
Click to expand...

this is making my point - the symbolism is important. The question is does legally changing the symbolism impact it?

Look at it this way:

10 - 25% of the population highly values the term marriage signifying a man a woman joined.

50 - 70% of the population could care less.

10 - 25% of the population highly values the term marriage signifying a same sex couple joined.

Why does the last group's view outweigh that of the first group?

In my view the middle group is growing and the first group is shrinking. Soon that shift will create a strong enough voting majority to change that part of the issue. Until then, bring on the civil unions to extend the legal rights (the real government issue).
 
#254
#254
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...

I would be completely fine with civil unions which provide the same legal benefits - primarily hospital visitation & medical decision-making rights (personal opinion). The problem with that is civil union benefits today vary from state to state, and are typically not fully recognized in other states. I think it could be the best solution, but there is much work to be done getting there.
 
#255
#255
volinbham said:
this is making my point - the symbolism is important. The question is does legally changing the symbolism impact it?

Look at it this way:

10 - 25% of the population highly values the term marriage signifying a man a woman joined.

50 - 70% of the population could care less.

10 - 25% of the population highly values the term marriage signifying a same sex couple joined.

Why does the last group's view outweigh that of the first group?

In my view the middle group is growing and the first group is shrinking. Soon that shift will create a strong enough voting majority to change that part of the issue. Until then, bring on the civil unions to extend the legal rights (the real government issue).
Click to expand...

a decent % of the population was against interracial marriage. not sure why we should legislate to protect the feelings of idiots.
 
#256
#256
utvolpj said:
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)
Click to expand...

I changed this to Medicaid as a better example of the difference between preferential treatment and government involvement.

Currently Medicaid is preferential treatment - extending it to everyone would eliminate preferential treatment but extend government involvement in our lives.

In truth, there are plenty of laws (state and Federal) that offer preferential treatment to groups based on gender, race and other demographics.
 
#258
#258
droski said:
so should we ban straight marriage as well?
Click to expand...

Probably, since cohabitation is so common now. Legal marriage's best justifications are the protection of women and children. If it no longer does that or if women no longer desire that then the justification for gov't involvement is gone.

I think it is a legitimate question whether gov't should be endorsing anyone's marriage or not.

We could go to something similar to a pre-nup. They could be standardized according to the desires of the couple. Since they are private contracts, gov't would have no say who entered into them or what it meant. Marriage would become a purely religious or cultural issue.
 
#260
#260
gcbvol said:
I simply don't understand why they would have to. Certainly does not seem like a fair or equal expectation.
Click to expand...

They don't "have to" remain celibate. Nor do they have to have gov't endorsement of their sexual preference.
 
#264
#264
KiffinKiller said:
Opinions on this board are fact. that is all.
Click to expand...

No. Facts are facts. When the legal definition once meant the joining of one man with one woman and now means the joining of two people regardless of gender then the definition has changed. That is a FACT.
 
#265
#265
William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_1825-1905_-_Dante_And_Virgil_In_Hell_1850-1.jpg
 
#267
#267
milohimself said:
... Dude, really?
Click to expand...

Does anything coming from GS surprise you? Ironically, the things that GS expresses he loathes regarding the Arabic-Islam world are exactly the sentiments GS expresses and defens regarding anything and everything connected to Christianity.

LF and the Nation of Islam express a desire to inflict vigilante justice against racist and rogue LEOs if the governmnt will not step in: GS makes the connection that LF is a murderer. GW makes the same type of statements regarding Islamists and GS reveres him as a hero and a martyr.

Serbian Christians eradicate Slavic Muslims: GS sides with the Serbians and, like Ahmadinejad, denies any genocide occurred, without regard to facts. Sudanese Muslims fight a bloody civil war with Sudanese Christians and GS declares that the atrocities in the Sudan are not proportionaly represented in both ethnic groups.

A single homosexual is extrajudiciously executed in the Middle East: GS claims that all Muslims are evil. A Christian Ugandan President signs a bill written by. Christian majority legislature which declares the sentence for homosexuality is death and GS states that the 5% Muslim population pushed the legislation through (then, GS posts pictures like the one above).

GS is a first class ass and a detriment to humanity. When I wish him a slow and excruciating demise, I am not being rhetorical. If I were Christian, I would be lighting candles and holding vigils in support of the cause.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#270
#270
Both religions have some serious issues that need to be worked out but to say Christian extremist are on the same level as Islamic extremist is false ... and I don't want to talk about hundreds of years ago. I'm talking current day. I do not see Christians going around chopping off heads in the name of Jesus. We are more of a passive aggresive bunch that likes to mindphuck individuals into believing certain things.

On a side note, I don't view marriage (with a state certificate) to mean a damn thing in the bigger picture of life. You can end that agreement at any point and over 50% of people do. I personally am not married by the law's standards but have been married before a preacher. I weigh that bond much heavier than any governemt form.

Point to that, I could care less who wants to get "legally" married.
 
#271
#271
NEOCON said:
Both religions have some serious issues that need to be worked out but to say Christian extremist are on the same level as Islamic extremist is false ... and I don't want to talk about hundreds of years ago. I'm talking current day. I do not see Christians going around chopping off heads in the name of Jesus. We are more of a passive aggresive bunch that likes to mindphuck individuals into believing certain things.
Click to expand...

This is certainly the case in W. Europe and the US; it is not the case in the Slavic world, subSaharan Africa, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. Christians, the world over, still commit "religiously justified" acts of violence.

This is why I continue to claim that the problem is socio-economic, not religious; and, I have tried my damndest to demonstrate that through discussion and debate in these forums.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#272
#272
Most of the places you name have alot to do with economics. The middle east, which you left out, does not. Over there they are just nuts.
 
#273
#273
NEOCON said:
Most of the places you name have alot to do with economics. The middle east, which you left out, does not. Over there they are just nuts.
Click to expand...

What? The Middle East is the most income stratified place on the planet; super rich v. super poor.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#275
#275
NEOCON said:
Most of the places you name have alot to do with economics. The middle east, which you left out, does not. Over there they are just nuts.
Click to expand...

The Middle East is the most economically backwards region on the planet.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top