- 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
Marriage Equality Argument - Pretty good point
Posted on 7/28/14 at 6:39 pm
Posted on 7/28/14 at 6:39 pm
I know asking for an open mind is not wise on this board, but I think the points raised are pretty good.
Marriage Equality - Really?
Marriage Equality - Really?
11
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:00 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
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.'
Choosing not to exercise a 'right' is not the same as not having that 'right.'
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 7:03 pm
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:04 pm to weagle99
Is that Ryan Anderson fella gay?
It's tough to tell.
It's tough to tell.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:05 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
I don't know why we have to redefine the definition of marriage...can't the gheys get their civil unions, benefits, etc.
and leave marriage alone?
Their push to call it marriage has turned me away...
and leave marriage alone?
Their push to call it marriage has turned me away...
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:07 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
Anderson employs a very similar argument that people did when slaves were claiming they were being denied rights.
Just substitute "personhood" with "marriage". "Well Mr. Slave, you are not being denied rights because you are not a person".
Or woman
"Well Mrs. Suffragette, you are not being denied rights because voting is reserved for men"
Just substitute "personhood" with "marriage". "Well Mr. Slave, you are not being denied rights because you are not a person".
Or woman
"Well Mrs. Suffragette, you are not being denied rights because voting is reserved for men"
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:07 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
This has always been a valid argument. Too bad it will be too late before people actually listen.
The guy who asked the question in the video is going to be extremely disappointed when getting married doesn't reduce his tax burden.
The guy who asked the question in the video is going to be extremely disappointed when getting married doesn't reduce his tax burden.
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 7:08 pm
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:07 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
Good link. Too high brow for most. He does get to the heart of the argument, which is the desire to re-define what marriage truly is. That is the issue at hand. We already have marriage defined. A segment of society wants to re-define it.
Do appreciate that both were exceptionally civil towards each other.
Do appreciate that both were exceptionally civil towards each other.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:08 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
What an asinine argument... "So you're choosing not to enter into a male/female marriage, so you're not discriminated against bc that's what the govt recognizes"
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.
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.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:09 pm to imjustafatkid
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?
Giving women suffrage rights was a massive redefinition of voting.
Why is "redefinition" a bad thing?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:10 pm 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.
Or just not recognize civil unions for tax purposes at all.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:10 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Why is "redefinition" a bad thing?
Why are you assuming it will be a good thing?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:11 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Or just not recognize civil unions for tax purposes at all.
Sounds good to me... I'm all for simplification of the tax code.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:11 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
We already have marriage defined. A segment of society wants to re-define it.
When exactly was it defined? The definition of marriage has continuously changed throughout the course of human history.
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 7:13 pm
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:12 pm to Lsut81
quote:
I'm all for simplification of the tax code.
The FairTax solves this 'problem' completely.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:12 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Anderson employs a very similar argument that people did when slaves were claiming they were being denied rights.
I would say your argument is valid with the points offered. However, no matter how much you want to permit same sex couples to join in unions, they still won't be married. Versus telling someone that they are not a human being with inalienable rights simply because of the color of their skin. Sorry, but they were wrong.
Quite frankly, I find it appalling when a homosexual says they are a minority. Just me.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:13 pm to Toddy
I'll ask again: How is aAnderson's argument any different than when pro-slavery people claimed that no rights were being denied because slaves do not fit eh definition of "people", and only people have rights?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:13 pm to Lsut81
quote:
Sounds good to me... I'm all for simplification of the tax code.
If that was the stance this "movement" had taken I could have gotten behind it. It was never about that though.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:15 pm to Toddy
quote:
When exactly was it defined?
Toddy, I know you mean that with the utmost of sincerity. But you are wrong. It has not been defined over and over again. That is simply a talking point offered by those in your position.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:15 pm to imjustafatkid
Another question:
Why should couples who can't produce children have any type of tax break?
Assuming we are stuck in our current system (which we are).
Why should couples who can't produce children have any type of tax break?
Assuming we are stuck in our current system (which we are).
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:15 pm to Lsut81
quote:
leave marriage up to the church or whomever
Well the church is out based on bible standards.
So what or who is "Whomever" ?
I have to give the speaker a tip of the hat for having the nads to tell it like it is in public.
Marriage is one man and one woman.
I can't believe we are in a era where that is considered courageous.
Page 1 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News