|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 27, 2015 14:06:32 GMT -5
Ted Cruz: Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation's historyUm, with all due respect, Senator Cruz ... Gettysburg? Pearl Harbor? The assassination of JFK? Too far back? How about ... the recent massacre in Charleston? Well, at least he didn't compare himself to Anne Frank. I always try to give conservatives that much credit. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 27, 2015 14:17:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 27, 2015 17:38:17 GMT -5
Ted Cruz: Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation's historyUm, with all due respect, Senator Cruz ... Gettysburg? Pearl Harbor? The assassination of JFK? Too farback? How about ... the recent massacre in Charleston? Well, at least he didn't compare himself to Anne Frank. I always try to give conservatives that much credit. Yeah, 3000+ people died on 9/11, but obviously the fact we're no longer discriminating against a portion of the population by denying them access to the same benefits as married heterosexual couples is worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2015 18:45:32 GMT -5
Ted Cruz: Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation's historyUm, with all due respect, Senator Cruz ... Gettysburg? Pearl Harbor? The assassination of JFK? Too far back? How about ... the recent massacre in Charleston? Well, at least he didn't compare himself to Anne Frank. I always try to give conservatives that much credit. Dear Ted, If you are feeling you are living in an age of darkness, I can tell you exactly why, and how to fix it: You have your eyes closed. Open them |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 28, 2015 10:00:50 GMT -5
Ed Brayton provides a short analysis of Scalia's same-sex marriage dissent. My nephew (he's 12) also likes to make hippie references than make no sense. Perhaps he'll be a Supreme Court justice some day. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jun 29, 2015 9:53:29 GMT -5
Sounds like he's trying to scare homosexual people away from marriage, just like one might scare a teenager with unwanted pregnancy and STD's in hopes they remain celibate. Which seems kind of reductive, since the other arguments I hear are that homosexuals marrying is desecrating the sanctity of marriage. So is heterosexual marriage sacred or a big pain in the ass homosexuals might as well not bother themselves with?
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jun 29, 2015 10:37:11 GMT -5
Sounds like he's trying to scare homosexual people away from marriage, just like one might scare a teenager with unwanted pregnancy and STD's in hopes they remain celibate. Which seems kind of reductive, since the other arguments I hear are that homosexuals marrying is desecrating the sanctity of marriage. So is heterosexual marriage sacred or a big pain in the ass homosexuals might as well not bother themselves with? Something I've never understood is how does someone else forming a union and calling it marriage, diminish the "sanctity" of others in more traditional marriages? Would the "sanctity" be safe if it were called something else? People in Wisconsin have been marrying each other regardless of gender for a couple of years now and I haven't noticed any change in my marriage. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jun 29, 2015 10:44:39 GMT -5
People in Wisconsin have been marrying each other regardless of gender for a couple of years now and I haven't noticed any change in my marriage. The only person I've ever seen who noticed a change in his marriage was Adam Felber, who currently writes for Bill Maher's show. This is what he wrote in 2004: |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jun 29, 2015 11:10:28 GMT -5
Sounds like he's trying to scare homosexual people away from marriage, just like one might scare a teenager with unwanted pregnancy and STD's in hopes they remain celibate. Which seems kind of reductive, since the other arguments I hear are that homosexuals marrying is desecrating the sanctity of marriage. So is heterosexual marriage sacred or a big pain in the ass homosexuals might as well not bother themselves with? Something I've never understood is how does someone else forming a union and calling it marriage, diminish the "sanctity" of others in more traditional marriages? Would the "sanctity" be safe if it were called something else? People in Wisconsin have been marrying each other regardless of gender for a couple of years now and I haven't noticed any change in my marriage. In observation of the argument on both sides I think that the biggest flaw of either making their point is that marriage and love are mutually exclusive, and they're not. Two people can be in love without marriage and two people can be married, heterosexual or homosexual and not be in love. Marriage is a legal contract recognized by this country. If both sides come at each other with the legal ramifications and benefits based upon how Constitution interprets said contract, then maybe the conclusion could come to a summit long ago. Love doesn't need marriage, and marriage isn't exclusive to love. In the legal benefits that come with the US marriage contract, I don't see much of an argument of why heterosexuals should receive them and homosexuals shouldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 29, 2015 11:39:28 GMT -5
Something I've never understood is how does someone else forming a union and calling it marriage, diminish the "sanctity" of others in more traditional marriages? Would the "sanctity" be safe if it were called something else? People in Wisconsin have been marrying each other regardless of gender for a couple of years now and I haven't noticed any change in my marriage. In observation of the argument on both sides I think that the biggest flaw of either making their point is that marriage and love are mutually exclusive, and they're not. Two people can be in love without marriage and two people can be married, heterosexual or homosexual and not be in love. Marriage is a legal contract recognized by this country. If both sides come at each other with the legal ramifications and benefits based upon how Constitution interprets said contract, then maybe the conclusion could come to a summit long ago. Love doesn't need marriage, and marriage isn't exclusive to love. In the legal benefits that come with the US marriage contract, I don't see much of an argument of why heterosexuals should receive them and homosexuals shouldn't.This is my argument (both literally and figuratively) with some folks I go to church with. They want to argue that marriage was created by God to only be between a man and a woman, and I will agree with them on that within the boundaries of the church. If a church doesn't want to sanction same-sex marriages, it should have the right to not do so (although I am glad that the PCUSA finally decided to allow it). That said, the government is in the marriage business as well. I can't get legally married in a church or anywhere else without the government's OK (given by a marriage license) but I can get married anywhere by a governmentally-authorized person without the church's approval as long as I have a license (my in-laws did the Justice of the Peace thing back in the 1950's and were married for 49 years without ever having a church ceremony), and that is where the religious opposition to the government-sanctioned institution of same-sex marriage falls apart. The church should be allowed to handle the "sacred" institution of marriage within its walls however it sees fit, but the government must offer all of its citizens the same right to marry in order to receive the legal benefits of marriage or else its policies are discriminatory and should be (and thankfully now have been) changed. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jun 29, 2015 11:47:38 GMT -5
Something I've never understood is how does someone else forming a union and calling it marriage, diminish the "sanctity" of others in more traditional marriages? Would the "sanctity" be safe if it were called something else? People in Wisconsin have been marrying each other regardless of gender for a couple of years now and I haven't noticed any change in my marriage. In observation of the argument on both sides I think that the biggest flaw of either making their point is that marriage and love are mutually exclusive, and they're not. Two people can be in love without marriage and two people can be married, heterosexual or homosexual and not be in love. Marriage is a legal contract recognized by this country. If both sides come at each other with the legal ramifications and benefits based upon how Constitution interprets said contract, then maybe the conclusion could come to a summit long ago. Love doesn't need marriage, and marriage isn't exclusive to love. In the legal benefits that come with the US marriage contract, I don't see much of an argument of why heterosexuals should receive them and homosexuals shouldn't. Good point about love and marriage not being the same thing. I certainly know from familial experience that you can be married and not in love and vice versa.
As to why heterosexual couples got rights that homosexual couples didn't, I guess it's basically the same reason interracial marriages were illegal. Because some people objected and they were the people in power.
I also see marriage in two different ways, religious and legal. If the tenets of a religion don't allow gay marriage, then that's one thing and under freedom of religion should be protected. To enforce that on the legal applications of marriage is to force a religious stance on the legal system which is what the whole separation of church and state is supposed to prevent.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jun 29, 2015 11:56:03 GMT -5
Something I've never understood is how does someone else forming a union and calling it marriage, diminish the "sanctity" of others in more traditional marriages? Would the "sanctity" be safe if it were called something else? People in Wisconsin have been marrying each other regardless of gender for a couple of years now and I haven't noticed any change in my marriage. In observation of the argument on both sides I think that the biggest flaw of either making their point is that marriage and love are mutually exclusive, and they're not. Two people can be in love without marriage and two people can be married, heterosexual or homosexual and not be in love. Marriage is a legal contract recognized by this country. If both sides come at each other with the legal ramifications and benefits based upon how Constitution interprets said contract, then maybe the conclusion could come to a summit long ago. Love doesn't need marriage, and marriage isn't exclusive to love. In the legal benefits that come with the US marriage contract, I don't see much of an argument of why heterosexuals should receive them and homosexuals shouldn't. I say this to people all the time!!! As far as I'm concerned, if X church decides they don't want to marry same-sex couples, fine.. that's their choice as a religious organization.. they can hang together and have a good time looking down their noses at people if that makes them happy. It's the LEGAL stuff that's important... sharing benefits, inheritance, visiting in the hospital, and just generally being considered 'Immediate Family' in the eyes of the law. If our country could handle it, I'd be totally fine with legal marriage (call it civil unions or whatever makes the conservative nutjobs happy) and religious marriage being separate..that way we could move on. Sadly, we all know how well 'separate but equal' works for us. I suspect this is going to be like abortion, people against it are going to constantly try to pick at it to pave the way for it to get changed. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jun 29, 2015 12:02:45 GMT -5
In observation of the argument on both sides I think that the biggest flaw of either making their point is that marriage and love are mutually exclusive, and they're not. Two people can be in love without marriage and two people can be married, heterosexual or homosexual and not be in love. Marriage is a legal contract recognized by this country. If both sides come at each other with the legal ramifications and benefits based upon how Constitution interprets said contract, then maybe the conclusion could come to a summit long ago. Love doesn't need marriage, and marriage isn't exclusive to love. In the legal benefits that come with the US marriage contract, I don't see much of an argument of why heterosexuals should receive them and homosexuals shouldn't.This is my argument (both literally and figuratively) with some folks I go to church with. They want to argue that marriage was created by God to only be between a man and a woman, and I will agree with them on that within the boundaries of the church. If a church doesn't want to sanction same-sex marriages, it should have the right to not do so (although I am glad that the PCUSA finally decided to allow it). That said, the government is in the marriage business as well. I can't get legally married in a church or anywhere else without the government's OK (given by a marriage license) but I can get married anywhere by a governmentally-authorized person without the church's approval as long as I have a license (my in-laws did the Justice of the Peace thing back in the 1950's and were married for 49 years without ever having a church ceremony), and that is where the religious opposition to the government-sanctioned institution of same-sex marriage falls apart. The church should be allowed to handle the "sacred" institution of marriage within its walls however it sees fit, but the government must offer all of its citizens the same right to marry in order to receive the legal benefits of marriage or else its policies are discriminatory and should be (and thankfully now have been) changed. That's about how I see it too. I don't think anyone will force the Catholic Church to host or perform gay marriage any time soon(though like interracial marriage that may change in the future) so the church can keep that, but anywhere else is fair game and that doesn't harm anyone. In a similar vain, I don't see Texas' decision standing unless they are able to provide alternate employees who will grant licences. I mean, you can't sign and process the document due to your beliefs, okay what ever, but legally there should be someone there who can. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 29, 2015 12:28:40 GMT -5
In a similar vain, I don't see Texas' decision standing unless they are able to provide alternate employees who will grant licences. I mean, you can't sign and process the document due to your beliefs, okay what ever, but legally there should be someone there who can. I'll have to disagree with this. If you can't do the job, you can't do the job. FIRED! I might be a little more sympathetic to people suffering from severe christian privilege if their religion really did condemn baking cakes for gay weddings or catering such events or doing your job as a government employee and providing paperwork for homosexuals. The scriptures of the religion they say they are following so ardently don't support any of this. The scriptures actually say that men who commit homosexual acts should be killed. The bible doesn't offer "be a total rude jerkwad and make Jesus look intolerant and stupid" as an alternative. They also single out homosexuals for such treatment despite the numerous other behaviors that their book condemns. But they know they would be VERY UNPOPULAR if they suddenly got all consistent and started condemning adulterers and the divorced and they also know they would look fricking stupid if they suddenly started refusing to bake cakes for people with tattoos and shellfish-eaters. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 29, 2015 12:33:31 GMT -5
This is my argument (both literally and figuratively) with some folks I go to church with. They want to argue that marriage was created by God to only be between a man and a woman, and I will agree with them on that within the boundaries of the church. If a church doesn't want to sanction same-sex marriages, it should have the right to not do so (although I am glad that the PCUSA finally decided to allow it). That said, the government is in the marriage business as well. I can't get legally married in a church or anywhere else without the government's OK (given by a marriage license) but I can get married anywhere by a governmentally-authorized person without the church's approval as long as I have a license (my in-laws did the Justice of the Peace thing back in the 1950's and were married for 49 years without ever having a church ceremony), and that is where the religious opposition to the government-sanctioned institution of same-sex marriage falls apart. The church should be allowed to handle the "sacred" institution of marriage within its walls however it sees fit, but the government must offer all of its citizens the same right to marry in order to receive the legal benefits of marriage or else its policies are discriminatory and should be (and thankfully now have been) changed. That's about how I see it too. I don't think anyone will force the Catholic Church to host or perform gay marriage any time soon(though like interracial marriage that may change in the future) so the church can keep that, but anywhere else is fair game and that doesn't harm anyone. In a similar vain, I don't see Texas' decision standing unless they are able to provide alternate employees who will grant licences. I mean, you can't sign and process the document due to your beliefs, okay what ever, but legally there should be someone there who can. I'm not familiar with the Texas' decision you're referencing, but it sounds like it allows people to opt out of signing and processing marriage licenses based on religious beliefs. If that is the case, those folks should look for new jobs, because as an employee of the government, you have an obligation to uphold the laws set forth by the government that employs you whether you agree with them or not. Whether or not members of the military voted for or even have any respect for the sitting president, that individual is the Commander in Chief and they are honor- and duty-bound to follow his orders. |
|
