Athletes in favor of gay marriage rights

#101
#101
volinbham said:
American Indians have different status on some issues
But only in the positive, not discriminatory against this one group
African Americans have different status on some issues
But only in the positive, not discriminatory against the group-- although I don't know what status they have, I'm just taking your word for it
I'm sure there are plenty of others.

Marriage begins with a definition. The same is true for citizenship. The same is true for any number of "status's" that the government oversees. They all begin with a definition of who qualifies. From the beginning of our history that definition was 1 man and 1 woman - those were the qualifiers. Sorry polygamists the definition doesn't fit We won't put a state stamp on your relationship. Preventing interracial marriage? Problem there since the definition did not specify race.

I have no doubt the "definition" will change. Even Obama says his position is evolving.
The definition already changed, actually. Also, I must point out that Judeo-Christianic tradition does not have the monopoly on marriage, marriage is different in different cultures, and we are supposed to be a secular nation, with separation from church and state.

Now to the abortion thing - how is not preventing abortion not perpetuating an injustice against the unborn life? Could it be how we've defined life? If we changed the definition to conception would anyone who supports abortion now be persecuting the unborn?
Not taking a stand against unborn life would be complicit in it's action. Fortunately, late-term abortion, when the fetus could hope to be classified as alive, is illegal.
At it's core - marriage (as opposed to equivalent civil union) is a symbol of society - it is entirely symbolic. That is what is being denied; a societal symbol. If you look into the reasons why gay people who oppose gay marriage you will see it is all about this symbol. They are opposed to heterosexualizing, homosexuality.
It is symbolic of gay people not being afforded the same status in the state's eyes, yes.
This is not preventing people from jobs, restaurants, country clubs, etc. Gay people can call themselves married if they like. In the end, the state is just not using the word "married" to describe the relationship.
For no other reason than some people have a problem with two adults' decisions in their personal lives.
Finally, stamping the word "married" on a gay relationship doesn't change how homophobic people see them. It doesn't mean society feels any different about their relationship. This is why I object most to court based solutions - the courts cannot confer symbolism.
It's a wake-up call as to who we are as a society. Integrating schools didn't make people any less racist, but it set a new benchmark, a new norm.
I have no doubt that we are probably 10 years max from pretty widespread acceptance of gay marriage. Until then I don't see this issue as persecution or some great injustice.Why? Because we are 10-20 years away? It's a toehold for discrimination, a false demarcation of status and rights. It needs to be erased.
Click to expand...
.
 
#103
#103
volinbham said:
I just object to the level we've reached in debate - rather than debate positions we label our opponents.

Call for welfare reform? = racist (for some reason)
Don't favor abortion? = sexist (we saw this in another thread)
Don't favor gay marriage = homophobe who is persecuting gays
Suggest government should have bigger role in HC = socialist/communist/marxist

Drives me nuts.

[/rant]

Good night VN - sorry to take the Pub all political.
Click to expand...
Agree completely
 
#105
#105
volinbham said:
Your opinion is superior to mine.

Guess I'm complicit in persecution then. Oh well.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far with you, as you get the gist that GLBT's do not enjoy the same legal status as heterosexuals do in most states. That needs to change. The fact that they don't would, by definition, be discrimination in those states.
 
#109
#109
droski said:
it's a legal issue primarily, not a moral one.
Click to expand...

I think in cases like this, the two are inextricably intertwined. What would you call it for those who do not wish to see gay couples have the same legal status as straight couples? And for me, I do consider a point of morality that all couples, regardless of orientation should have the same legal status and rights.
 
#110
#110
milohimself said:
I think in cases like this, the two are inextricably intertwined. What would you call it for those who do not wish to see gay couples have the same legal status as straight couples? And for me, I do consider a point of morality that all couples, regardless of orientation should have the same legal status and rights.
Click to expand...

:good!:
 
#111
#111
tvolsfan said:
Maybe not the base, but I think there are fiscal conservatives/social liberals that would be more likely to vote Republican.
Click to expand...

We'll see when the time gets here. I'm not sure there aren't a lot of people who aren't ready for national legislation on same sex marriage.
 
#112
#112
milohimself said:
We'll see when the time gets here. I'm not sure there aren't a lot of people who aren't ready for national legislation on same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

I am constitutionally opposed to that. Though I prefer freedom, I also prioritize rule of law. Let the states govern themselves, and allow people to vote with their feet.
 
#113
#113
If the states wanted it, they would have done it already. I think we're still decades away from seeing the Arkansas and Mississippis of the country put this through.
 
#114
#114
athletes are welcome to their opinions, what's stupid is the NBA fining players like Bryant and Noah for hurling an epithet that's been around for decades. What's worse, a slang term for a homosexual (which is like the "N"-word, it can be used by a particular community, but no one else) or being called an SOB or an MFer?

I don't really care if gays want to get married and call it so. Heterosexuals have done much damage to the institution of marriage. I doubt the addition of a few same-sex couples who have been in long-term, loving and monogamous relationships will harm it in any way. LGBT groups would find themselves allies in most libertarian organizations who think that government should have no role in marriage.
 
#116
#116
milohimself said:
I think in cases like this, the two are inextricably intertwined. What would you call it for those who do not wish to see gay couples have the same legal status as straight couples? And for me, I do consider a point of morality that all couples, regardless of orientation should have the same legal status and rights.
Click to expand...

i agree. i'm not sure why we need to get into the whole bible debate. there are certain legal rights that hetero couples have that gay couples do not and it makes no sense logically to limit that definition.
 
#117
#117
milohimself said:
I wouldn't go that far with you, as you get the gist that GLBT's do not enjoy the same legal status as heterosexuals do in most states. That needs to change. The fact that they don't would, by definition, be discrimination in those states.
Click to expand...

Discrimination? Perhaps. Persecution - no way.
 
#118
#118
droski said:
i agree. i'm not sure why we need to get into the whole bible debate. there are certain legal rights that hetero couples have that gay couples do not and it makes no sense logically to limit that definition.
Click to expand...

Well then we are back to civil unions vs marriage. Civil unions can convey all the same legal rights.

It is the word "marriage" that is so strongly fought over. I can see both sides but that apparently makes me complicit in persecution of one side.

Also, we are back to favoring couples over singles and triples, quadruples, etc. in terms of legal rights.
 
Last edited:
#120
#120
volinbham said:
Well then we are back to civil unions vs marriage. Civil unions can convey all the same legal rights.

It is the word "marriage" that is so strongly fought over. I can see both sides but that apparently makes me complicit in persecution of one side.

Also, we are back to favoring couples over singles and triples, quadruples, etc. in terms of legal rights.
Click to expand...

as long as there is no kids involved and they are willing i could care less if you want 4 wives. are we going to eliminate "marriage certficates" and just call them "civil union" certificates? i'm all for that.
 
#121
#121
I think that if gay marriage is legalized, polygamy should be legalized as well. I don't really see much of an argument for legalizing gay marriage and not legalizing polygamy.
 
#122
#122
volinbham said:
It is the word "marriage" that is so strongly fought over.
Click to expand...

I have been saying this for years.

Whether or not they can adopt is an issue for another time, but if a gay couple wants to jointly file taxes, get spousal rights for emergencies, etc. they should be able to.
 
#123
#123
tvolsfan said:
I think that if gay marriage is legalized, polygamy should be legalized as well. I don't really see much of an argument for legalizing gay marriage and not legalizing polygamy.
Click to expand...

There isn't any argument for one over another - particularly one based on discrimination.
 
#124
#124
droski said:
as long as there is no kids involved and they are willing i could care less if you want 4 wives. are we going to eliminate "marriage certficates" and just call them "civil union" certificates? i'm all for that.
Click to expand...

if the ceremony is performed by a justice of the peace, ship's captain or some other, secular figure, call it a civil union. If it's performed by a religious figure call it a marriage. Consider both to be legal contracts that confer the same benefits in terms of taxes, inheritance, etc.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top