- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Marriage Equality Argument - Pretty good point
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:08 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:08 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
don't care, it's a farce
Tomorrow let's just start calling the color of the sky green, same difference.
Tomorrow let's just start calling the color of the sky green, same difference.
0
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:09 pm to Sentrius
quote:
FIFY
I would cede to that point (religion being defined in the classic sense). Where you and I would differ is that I see it as an institution established by God for His purpose and plan. I recognize that you do not see it the same way.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:24 pm to Sentrius
quote:
There's a valid public interest in it as a secular institution to be regulated as a form of a social contract between two consenting adults.
Why just two?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:31 pm to weagle99
quote:Exactly.
I have been saying the same things on this board for awhile and get emoticons for responses. Choosing not to exercise a 'right' is not the same as not having that 'right.'
I had an idea when I saw that thread about a moral person living in an immoral world.
Wouldn't that make the moral individual all the more righteous if they remained moral amongst temptation? Legislating out certain actions is a sign of weakness, IMO.
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 8:32 pm
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:32 pm to weagle99
quote:
Why just two?
With regards to polygamy, I have no issue with a group of adults settling out a contract and being married, however it's a completely different animal as far as financial and societal impacts go and I still need to do a lot of research on it. Society dictates the norms and cultural shifts that will happen, not the state and it says that it's ready for gay marriage to be a cultural norm, it will be accepted.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:46 pm to ApexTiger
quote:
Marriage Equality Argument - Pretty good point
I agree 100%.
Very well said.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:56 pm to ctiger69
The underlying assumptions have led to sinister government policies.
For a long time in this nation, slaves were not defined as "people", which led to the appalling argument that slavery was not a denial of rights.
For a long time in this nation, women were not defined as "voters", which led to suffrage discrimination.
In many states right now, gay relationships do not fit the definition of "marriage", which is the root of discrimination.
For a long time in this nation, slaves were not defined as "people", which led to the appalling argument that slavery was not a denial of rights.
For a long time in this nation, women were not defined as "voters", which led to suffrage discrimination.
In many states right now, gay relationships do not fit the definition of "marriage", which is the root of discrimination.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:58 pm to Sentrius
I support gay marriage mostly because if the government is going to recognize unions of this type between two consenting individuals it doesn't really make sense to deny it to same-sex couples.
But the alarming speed with which this debate has shifted into such vitriol is disheartening. I always thought the way gay marriage advocates would win others to their cause would be by logic, reason, and an appeal to compassion. That all seems to have gone out the window and the methods now largely seem to be to tear down those who dare to believe that it is not right to "change" the definition of marriage (and yes, I'm aware that this definition has been altered through time). Opponents are cast as horrible people by the drawing of thinly-veiled allusions to things like slavery and women's suffrage which are completely on a different plane from this issue.
It wasn't that long ago when Elton John of all people was essentially "opposed" (or at the least ambivalent) to the idea of gay marriage. That has changed now obviously as the entire debate parameters have changed. Opposition is taken as pure hatred. Not standing up for gay marriage is essentially equivalent to opposing individuals' right to vote or to attend public schools. I think the whole thing is crazy.
So as much as I support marriage equality, there are huge swaths of the same group of supporters with whom I would rather not be associated.
But the alarming speed with which this debate has shifted into such vitriol is disheartening. I always thought the way gay marriage advocates would win others to their cause would be by logic, reason, and an appeal to compassion. That all seems to have gone out the window and the methods now largely seem to be to tear down those who dare to believe that it is not right to "change" the definition of marriage (and yes, I'm aware that this definition has been altered through time). Opponents are cast as horrible people by the drawing of thinly-veiled allusions to things like slavery and women's suffrage which are completely on a different plane from this issue.
It wasn't that long ago when Elton John of all people was essentially "opposed" (or at the least ambivalent) to the idea of gay marriage. That has changed now obviously as the entire debate parameters have changed. Opposition is taken as pure hatred. Not standing up for gay marriage is essentially equivalent to opposing individuals' right to vote or to attend public schools. I think the whole thing is crazy.
So as much as I support marriage equality, there are huge swaths of the same group of supporters with whom I would rather not be associated.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:58 pm to LawLessTyGer
quote:
can't the gheys get their civil unions, benefits, etc.
and leave marriage alone?
The frick? Isn't that the whole point of "marriage equality"?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:44 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Or woman
"Well Mrs. Suffragette, you are not being denied rights because voting is reserved for men"
THAT'S exactly what they were told and exactly what the Constitution provided.
Which is why the 19th Amendment was necessary for women to get the right to vote.
Which, if gays want a Federal Constitutional right to marry, is exactly what they should be required to pass.
If the pro-gay lobby got a Constitutional amendment, I would have no problem with a Federal Constitutional right to gay marriage.
And, since there is nothing in the Constitution that grants gay marriage rights, and nothing was ever intended to grant gay marriage rights, that's exactly what should be required. Or, as our Federalist system was designed, gays should be able to get states to recognize the right to gay marriage -- which, if they get that done in a Constitutional manner (i.e., not by judicial fiat), no one should have a problem with.
quote:
Freeing the slaves was a massive redefinition of personhood
Giving women suffrage rights was a massive redefinition of voting.
Why is "redefinition" a bad thing?
Nothing. As long as it's done in a Constitutional manner. As mentioned above, both of these "redefinitions" were done through specific Constitutional amendments.
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 10:49 pm
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:54 pm to GoBigOrange86
quote:
I support marriage equality
Actually, you are supporting a new definition of marriage.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:56 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Society dictates the norms and cultural shifts that will happen, not the state and it says that it's ready for gay marriage to be a cultural norm, it will be accepted.
But, what's a "societal norm" in California isn't always a "societal norm" in Alabama. And, our forefathers recognized this and why they left such social issues to be determined by the states -- unless specifically provided for in the Constitution. Marriage is EXACTLY the type of decision that was left to the states. Some Constitutional provisions have put limitations -- like the Amendments freeing the slaves. But, those amendments were never intended to apply to gay marriage.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:33 pm to MMauler
quote:you think the Constitution let blacks have their rights? No, the courts did, a hundred years later.
if they get that done in a Constitutional manner (i.e., not by judicial fiat), no one should have a problem with.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:11 am to Lsut81
quote:
Again, the govt should not be involved in marriage whatsoever. Recognize civil unions for the basis of taxes and leave marriage up to the church or whomever you want to tell you that you're married.
Oh look, it's the answer everyone forgets about. It's the only compromise that works.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:13 am to MMauler
Marriage is EXACTLY the type of decision that was left to the states.
Yes and we saw how that worked with the laws against interracial marriages. Those, too, had to be struck down by Federal courts.
Yes and we saw how that worked with the laws against interracial marriages. Those, too, had to be struck down by Federal courts.
This post was edited on 7/29/14 at 12:16 am
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:23 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Oh look, it's the answer everyone forgets about. It's the only compromise that works.
How do you get gov't out of an institution that is secular in origin and predates religion entirely?
Posted on 7/29/14 at 6:22 am to LawLessTyGer
quote:
I don't know why we have to redefine the definition of marriage...
We need to go back to the original definition.
1. One man One woman.
2. Of the same race and religion.
3. Arranged by the parents, legal guardians, or other socially accepted form of arrangement (such as a Jewish match-maker)
4. Only virgin women, or widows, are allowed to marry.
5. No divorce allowed.
6. The woman gives up all her property to the man.
7. The man is allowed - within reason - to beat the woman when she misbehaves.
8. If the woman disappears and the man says she just ran off - we take his word.
Because, I, like you, am sick and tired of marriage being constantly redefined.
This post was edited on 7/29/14 at 6:26 am
Posted on 7/29/14 at 7:33 am to Sentrius
quote:
How do you get gov't out of an institution that is secular in origin and predates religion entirely?
quote:
Oh look, it's the answer everyone forgets about. It's the only compromise that works.
That solution is just about solving the entire problem and getting this settled for good so we can move on to more important things.
If the anti-gay lobby person has a problem with calling everything a civil union and letting churches label marriages themselves, then they are being both hypocritical and narrow minded. They shouldn't. If it's about the redefinition of the word "marriage" then taking the word marriage out should solve their problem.
If the pro-gay marriage crowd just want equal rights and legal rights and responsibilities, then why does it matter what it's called? Civil unions are already defined, and we would just be moving that idea on to everyone, straight or gay. If they don't support that, they are hypocrites as well. They can still be married and say married, they can still have religious ceremonies for those that give them, no one can stop these things.
Everyone wins.
The government should have an interest in legal responsibilities around children, that's why we can't get them out of marriage, as much as that's the right thing to do.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 8:41 am to Freauxzen
quote:
If the anti-gay lobby person has a problem with calling everything a civil union and letting churches label marriages themselves, then they are being both hypocritical and narrow minded. They shouldn't. If it's about the redefinition of the word "marriage" then taking the word marriage out should solve their problem.
here what may come up for the anti-gay marriage lobby.
if gay couples can have civil unions, can they adopt? if they seek couple consoling will it be illegal to refuse to meet with them? There are other issues but this isn't a simple let the state divine civil unions and the Church define marriage.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 9:03 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
He absolutely did. He claimed that no discrimination exists because the gay man has just as much of a right to enter into a marriage contract as a straight man. He is assuming that marriage has a concrete, timeless definition.
It is no different than pro-slavery folks saying that personhood has a concrete, timeless definition, and slaves aren't a part of it, so there is no discrimination.
this is a good point, if marriage is defined by human standards only than you are correct his definition fails. I would argue though that marriage isn't defined by humans, rather the natural world defines marriage. Yes there is no religious marriage in the natural world but I would suggest that when you look at the animals and such there are still relationships between those animals. They may not always have one life partner but a relationship does exist in many animals.
But I think the question comes down to ultimately what is the purpose of marriage?
why do people decide to spend the rest of their life with one person? (I have yet to see someone argue that marriage isn't permanent)
Can nature tell us the purpose of marriage? (I think it can, animals come together to produce off spring, for many animals it is this only, but I think beautifully that marriage for humans also adds a unitive aspect to it, man marries a women so that their relationship can go to very deep levels more than just a sexual level. I think when you look at human nature you will see this.)
But my basic argument and the video hints at it. The reason that gays can't get married because the purpose of marriage is the unity of the spouse and the production of offspring. That is why marriage is for man and women and not man and man or women and women.
what the gay lobby has done has reduced marriage to "love" only. But I would argue that this love is not the love of married couples, because I believe that the love between spouses is what brings about another child. The most intimate act known to man is the sexual act, that act of love done properly and done at the perfect time brings about a offspring.
To put it simply gays can't get married because it is biologically impossible for them to have an offspring. (Assuming no sperm donation, or something)
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News