Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 71
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Fully disclosure: I am a Christian, Conservative, Straight, White Male.

    One of the most well known stances that the Republican Party holds is in its opposition to gay marriage and by extension homosexuals. While there may be several reasons for this position, I find that such a stance is illogical and contrary to party values. There are three major points that Republicans should consider going forth:

    1: Homosexual marriage does NOTHING to the sanctity of marriage between straight people: Contemplate for a moment, what does the term "sanctity of marriage" really mean? Consider this, when Billy cheats on Sally, does that act diminish the sanctity of your marriage or any other marriage other than the one that exists between Sally and Billy? The answer, obviously, is no. Why? Because the actions of someone else in another marriage, or any other type of relationship, do nothing to the sanctity of someone elses marriage. Sanctity is established and defined by the individuals involved, in that of which, that becomes sanctified. Only the actions, or inactions, between parties that are directly involved in the relationship which is sanctified have ANY bearing on the sanctity of their individual marriage or relationship. Therefore, the position against homosexual marriage for sanctity reasons is invalid and should be rejected.

    2: Trying to use the force of law against homosexuals and homosexuality is incompatible to the concepts of freedom and liberty: Republicans say that they are for smaller government, less regulations, more personal freedom, more personal liberty, and less general involvement from the government in our lives. However, they hold a position that necessarily uses the power of government to force beliefs and morality of one section of the population onto another. As such, that are actively advocating the very thing that they harp so strongly against. If freedom and personal liberty can be described as "my freedom ends were your nose begins" and/or the government staying out of people's business as long as it does not harm anyone else, then how can the Republican party advocate a position that does exactly that? You may find homosexually unattractive, as I do, and you may find it disgusting, as I do, however, that DOES NOT give you a right to take away anyone's rights just because you disagree with them. Hell, I find eating onions to be vile, repulsive, and disgusting...that doesnt mean I should try to use the power of government to ban onions.


    3: There are many homosexuals / bisexuals that would vote Republican were it not for the gay issue that Republicans have: This relies on anecdotal evidence for the most part, but I personally know several individuals that are bi / gay that express to me that the SOLE reason that they cannot vote Republican is because of this gay issue, perceived or otherwise. We would be able to dominate Congress and the Presidency for decades to come if we could reject this silly nonsense and move on.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by Someguy; July 6th, 2012 at 01:27 AM.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  2. Likes Just Me, Tarja, SharmaK, JohnLocke, mican333 liked this post
  3. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by SOME GUY
    2: Trying to use the force of law against homosexuals and homosexuality is incompatible to the concepts of freedom and liberty: Republicans say that they are for smaller government, less regulations, more personal freedom, more personal liberty, and less general involvement from the government in our lives. However, they hold a position that necessarily uses the power of government to force beliefs and morality of one section of the population onto another. As such, that are actively advocating the very thing that they harp so strongly against. If freedom and personal liberty can be described as "my freedom ends were your nose begins" and/or the government staying out of people's business as long as it does not harm anyone else, then how can the Republican party advocate a position that does exactly that? You may find homosexually unattractive, as I do, and you may find it disgusting, as I do, however, that DOES NOT give you a right to take away anyone's rights just because you disagree with them. Hell, I find eating onions to be vile, repulsive, and disgusting...that doesnt mean I should try to use the power of government to ban onions.
    I take a similar stance. Only it is based on the fact that marriage is/was first a religious event that the state recognized.
    Thus I think the main problem is that the gov is engaging in a kind of religion and establishing rules to that religion. I now feel that any gov "marriage" is nothing of the sort. It is a business contract as far as the state goes. While the gov may define what sort of contract entails what perimeters, the idea of drawing a legal distinction based on sex seems unconst to me, or at the very least arbitrary.

    So, ironically I think that by leaving "marriage" up to religions, and letting the state choose to recognize all or none, the basic problem would be fixed.


    The ultimate cause is the blurring of the lines between church and state, forcing people to vote their conscience (which they should) and thus preventing change. Everyone should be free to be immoral to the point that it doesn't infringe on the inherent rights of others. Yet, this solution seems so obvious and no one appears to want it. Could it be that both sides like a state religion?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  4. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    381
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    I wholeheartedly agree. This is the one Republican issue that I don't think can actually be legitimately debated against without a hint of hypocrisy. Not harmful to anyone, gives equal rights and benefits to all... This should definitely be something that both parties should agree on.
    "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something."-Plato

  5. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,843
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    My thoughts on the matter are firstly, kudos to the (straight) conservatives that have found a way to be on the right side, despite their religious convictions. I've been holding off this thread to see what the other side on the issue would say but I guess no-one is biting.

    Personally, I like that one party is supporting gay marriage and another not since it continues to be an extremely divisive issue in this country. On a practical level, it would be strange not to have that view unrepresented given that 74% of Republicans still believe that gay marriage is morally wrong, which I believe, as Christians, you all do - you're just putting freedom/liberty above your morality here. The country as a whole is just tipped over to 50% supporting GM this year, down from last year, the first time it ever went over 50%, at 53%. So there's still a way to go regardless of political affiliation. More importantly on this point, that it is even a presidential-level issue is progress.
    [stats source: Gallup 5/12]

    As a social conservative, one should be the bulwark against too fast a social change and stand for tradition; against civil rights, against women's rights (src), and now against gay rights. It's part of the job description to argue vigorously on the issue and resist until the tipping point.
    In this case whether the government's role in guiding morality, which is all the issue boils down to ultimately, stands afore; whereas in the civil rights issues it was the superiority of whites, and in women's rights the superiority of men (src). And as each pillar is knocked down, the country gets back together and pretend it never happened.

    I believe that the pillar needs to be brought down strongly, otherwise it would be too easy to re-erect. Hence issues such as abortion is only one SCOTUS vote away from being made illegal all over again and is a continuous issue. By the same token, rolling back civil rights is nigh impossible at this stage, not least of which it is a settled issue as far as nearly all Americans are concerned (I can't even find a survey about it and 'equal rights' now means women's rights).

    Within the party, the social conservatives are still a large voting bloc, even to the point that groups such as GOProud still cannot be represented. Even GOProud's statement of support of Romney puts that " jobs, the economy, healthcare, retirement security and taxes are all ‘gay issues,’ and on every single one of those issues, Mitt Romney is light years better than President Obama." (src) despite, presumably, knowing that Romney is wholly against gay marriage and homosexuality altogether - perhaps, they are just GINO's (Gay in name only)? It may just another one of those strange powers the Republican party has to make people vote against their self interest, but until GOProud can have a seat at the table without the hate-groups within stalking out, I can't see a change.

    In case you didn't know SCOTUS has been asked to rule on DOMA (src):

    WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to settle the legal fight over a law that denies federal benefits to married gay couples.The Justice Department on Tuesday asked the court to hear an appeal in its next term of lower court rulings striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act. The earliest the justices might decide to hear the case is in late September. Arguments probably would take place over the winter and a decision returned by late June 2013.The administration said it agrees with the lower court rulings, but wants prompt high court review because President Barack Obama has instructed federal agencies to continue to enforce the law's ban on federal benefits to married gay couples until there is a final court ruling.
    So maybe this is where it needs to end up to hammer the point of the separation of church & state but also on government interference.

    Quickly onto the points in the OP:

    1:
    Homosexual marriage does NOTHING to the sanctity of marriage between straight people
    :This is really side-stepping the issue as to whether it is the government's role to interfere with moral issues - I don't know if you're pro-choice or pro-life but both are moral issues that stand together in my mind.

    2:
    Trying to use the force of law against homosexuals and homosexuality is incompatible to the concepts of freedom and liberty
    : This is the strongest argument I think that can cut a swath from end-to-end of the party form libertarians for sure, through the Christian blocs to the right-of-centers and independents. For this to really take hold though, the Christian bloc, likely the largest and most powerful opponents, needs to figure out a practical way to ignore the religious issue since it will be seen, and is, a further erosion of religious power.

    3:
    There are many homosexuals / bisexuals that would vote Republican were it not for the gay issue that Republicans have
    : As a Democrat, if I could vote, I say the Republicans should keep providing the choice quotes that the rest of us find amusing. It's sad to see the Romney move towards the right on the issue but that's his job now I suppose.


    It was powerful to see Obama coming out on the side of gay marriage and the immediate effect it had on the minds of many. I think it signals another plank in his coming campaign and his second term, should he win. Maybe you Republicans should vote for him this year, if you feel strongly enough on this issue -- Romney will at best do nothing but he could end up unwinding DADT or worse re-enforce DOMA.

  6. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    ---Offering my other side---
    If we do not agree that the gov is engaging in establishing a religion, then I don't agree that the issue is necessarily agree with the OP.
    *note* Once you agree with the above, then I agree with the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    1:
    Homosexual marriage does NOTHING to the sanctity of marriage between straight people
    This isn't a "sanctity" of marriage discussion. It is a "meaning/definition" of marriage discussion.
    If the people want a specific label and protections for certain relationships over others then they are free to do so.
    So it isn't about hurting or harming anyone, not giving a tax break to one group is not inherently "harming" them, it is apathetic.

    The people want to distinguish marriage(legal union of man and wife) from every other kind of relationship.
    1) There is no reason why the people can't do this or shouldn't do this.
    2) Creating a new definition/contract is up to the relationship that is trying to get acceptance, not redefining the meaning of words contained in another contract.

    This is not an argument against giving gay marriage a legal title, only against it taking the title of another legal status.
    They may as well be arguing to change the meaning of the words in "Lease agreement", "Incorporated", etc. in order to include "the union of the two same sexed people".


    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    2: Trying to use the force of law against homosexuals and homosexuality is incompatible to the concepts of freedom and liberty:
    There is no force involved. Homosexual relationships are not illegal. They can go to a church and have a church leader "marry" them. The state simply has no laws against this. In fact, not calling such a thing a kind of "marriage" is offensive to me. What the fight is about is not about marriage, it is about lobbying for a legal TITLE and certain legal social benefits. I emphasis "title" because if they were were pushing for legal status, they would be happy with any title that status is given.

    So, I'm actually wrong,there is force involved. This is an attempt by gay movement to force social acceptance of their lifestyle onto the rest of the population through the power of the gov.



    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    3:
    There are many homosexuals / bisexuals that would vote Republican were it not for the gay issue that Republicans have
    Meh.. I don't really care.
    I think that if the issue was divorced (pun) from the naming rights issue, there wouldn't be such a big outcry against it.
    The majority of People don't want you taking their name, they want you to get your own. Why is that too much to ask?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  7. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,843
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    ---Offering my other side---
    If we do not agree that the gov is engaging in establishing a religion, then I don't agree that the issue is necessarily agree with the OP.
    *note* Once you agree with the above, then I agree with the OP.
    I think you should say that again!

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This isn't a "sanctity" of marriage discussion. It is a "meaning/definition" of marriage discussion.

    If the people want a specific label and protections for certain relationships over others then they are free to do so.
    So it isn't about hurting or harming anyone, not giving a tax break to one group is not inherently "harming" them, it is apathetic.
    Actually, I don't think its anything to do with the word or the label at all. The actions of many religious hospitals to deny visitation rights, to me, is one of the most heart rendering consequences of the issue. And for that to be corrected, the law needs to legally recognize the relationship no matter what it is being called. The tax issue is also an inheritance issue such that the legal burden on a same-sex couple is higher than a heterosexual one.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The people want to distinguish marriage(legal union of man and wife) from every other kind of relationship.
    1) There is no reason why the people can't do this or shouldn't do this.
    2) Creating a new definition/contract is up to the relationship that is trying to get acceptance, not redefining the meaning of words contained in another contract.
    Well, the meaning marriage has changed many times throughout religious and legal history: it was only meant to be between members of the same race at one point, and still is in some places. SCOTUS had to rule in 1967 against the anti-miscengenation laws, as they were called back then, to make it happen! And lots of huffing and puffing from the religious then too:
    "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix."

    In fact, it's still a problem. In 2009, Jindal forced a Justice of the peace to resign because he refused to marry an interracial couple (src).

    So the argument that the meaning of the word cannot change is untrue - it changed just 50 years ago. To have to create a new set of contracts and laws is frankly a ludicrous. Imagine that applied to the race laws, you'd have to have one set for every race combination or in the case of LGBT marriage, every combination of L, G, B & T - about 4 more sets, I think.

    It's just more efficient to say that there's a legal sense of 'marriage' and a religious sense. That way, all the rights for heterosexual couples, including inter-racial ones, can be applied to LGBT couples too.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is not an argument against giving gay marriage a legal title, only against it taking the title of another legal status.
    They may as well be arguing to change the meaning of the words in "Lease agreement", "Incorporated", etc. in order to include "the union of the two same sexed people".
    No, it efficiently and quickly provides LGBT couples a way to instantly gain the same rights as everyone else! In fact, it is the best way to enact the change - [Inappropriate tone removed]

    Redefining legal marriage is constitutional and it is the most efficient way to provide rights. It's like saying that forgiving someone is a Christian term and shouldn't be used in any legal texts in case it gets misconstrued as God doing the forgiving as opposed to the context giving rise to the meaning.

    I don't think this argument holds water and is a really a strawman used to delay the change in legislation.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is no force involved. Homosexual relationships are not illegal. They can go to a church and have a church leader "marry" them. The state simply has no laws against this. In fact, not calling such a thing a kind of "marriage" is offensive to me. What the fight is about is not about marriage, it is about lobbying for a legal TITLE and certain legal social benefits. I emphasis "title" because if they were were pushing for legal status, they would be happy with any title that status is given.

    So, I'm actually wrong,there is force involved. This is an attempt by gay movement to force social acceptance of their lifestyle onto the rest of the population through the power of the gov.
    Just to reiterate, the title issue is incorrect per above. And it isn't attempting to force social acceptance but to develop it. Racial equality took decades of awareness until even the most ardent racists would are really pro-white now, not anti-black. So it is with the Gay, and as I point out, forcing the issue might end up just causing more years of strife than not. That said, we haven't lost any wars due to the repeal of DADT, and the military forces have reported little, if any, impact so it's arguable that there's any social harm done at all.

    Also, no-one is forcing anyone to be gay but there's nothing wrong with forcing equal rights through the power of the federal government - it's what the Constitution says. It makes no distinction between race nor family history nor social standing nor wealth; why the distinction for sexual orientation?



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Meh.. I don't really care.
    I think that if the issue was divorced (pun) from the naming rights issue, there wouldn't be such a big outcry against it.
    The majority of People don't want you taking their name, they want you to get your own. Why is that too much to ask?
    In case it's not clear:

    1. Words take on new meanings -[Flame removed]

    2. The term marriage specifically already has taken on new meanings - it was once illegal/immoral to inter-marry between races.
    3. The outcry is only from the religious, who can't even protect their own religiously sanctioned marriages even among Catholics, where it is explicitly forbidden. So the term is largely meaning amongst them too.
    4. I don't recall any legal ownership on a word - where is this registered? Surely then it would be called marriage(TM).
    5. And it is too much to ask because it means a writing of a set of parallel laws. Surely, it is more efficient, to just change it in the one place: that marriage is a union between two people.
    Last edited by Squatch347; July 9th, 2012 at 09:03 AM. Reason: Flame Removed

  8. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is not an argument against giving gay marriage a legal title, only against it taking the title of another legal status.
    They may as well be arguing to change the meaning of the words in "Lease agreement", "Incorporated", etc. in order to include "the union of the two same sexed people".
    What's wrong with that? If the definition of "leases agreement" was unfairly excluding same-sex couples, then I don't see what's wrong with altering the definition to include them. And it's certainly not taking the title of another legal status.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What the fight is about is not about marriage, it is about lobbying for a legal TITLE and certain legal social benefits. I emphasis "title" because if they were were pushing for legal status, they would be happy with any title that status is given.
    So apparently it's more than just legal status in many of their opinions. And I certainly can relate to that. I'm straight and I view my marriage as something more than a legal status. I don't see why gays should feel any differently.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is an attempt by gay movement to force social acceptance of their lifestyle onto the rest of the population through the power of the gov.
    When the government threatens to punish you for not accepting the gay lifestyle, let me know.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The majority of People don't want you taking their name, they want you to get your own. Why is that too much to ask?
    First off, its not a majority anymore.

    http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...pport-new-poll

    And the name is not "theirs" - it's the name OUR ("our" includes both straights and gays) government and OUR churches and OUR society uses to describe a committed union and there has never been another name for it for most of our history so why call it something else for a different group? I'm of Norwegian descent and if the rules were that us Norwegians should use a different name for our legal and socially recognized unions, I wouldn't accept it. I would assume that I am being asked because others feel that I don't deserve the same name that everyone else gets. So why should I cater to other's bigotry? And if it's not bigotry that's at issue, then why on Earth would anyone care if a certain someone else is using the same term that they are? Maybe if someone had a rational explanation of why they don't want gays to use the term marriage, I'd understand. But I have yet to hear one.
    Last edited by mican333; July 7th, 2012 at 12:21 PM.

  9. Likes Gemini liked this post
  10. #8
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    What's wrong with that? If the definition of "leases agreement" was unfairly excluding same-sex couples, then I don't see what's wrong with altering the definition to include them. And it's certainly not taking the title of another legal status.
    What is wrong with it, is that trying to change the meaning implies that there is a problem with the meaning.
    There is none.

    I don't think you really got my point, and instead focused on a technicality.
    If you change the term of a "lease" so that it is then really a "non lease", then you are more on track.
    If however you are thinking about redefining the terms of the lease as being unfair, then it makes more sense to make them illegal.

    Prostitution for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So apparently it's more than just legal status in many of their opinions. And I certainly can relate to that. I'm straight and I view my marriage as something more than a legal status. I don't see why gays should feel any differently.
    How does this counter or even contend with what I said?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    When the government threatens to punish you for not accepting the gay lifestyle, let me know.
    As soon as the gov changes the meaning of the legal contract I have signed by changing the meanings of the word... I will.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    First off, its not a majority anymore.

    http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...pport-new-poll
    I don't buy that poll. 1K people is too small of a sample
    We should take what people have voted as evidence.
    I'll accept that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And the name is not "theirs" - it's the name OUR ("our" includes both straights and gays) government and OUR churches and OUR society uses to describe a committed union and there has never been another name for it for most of our history so why call it something else for a different group? I'm of Norwegian descent and if the rules were that us Norwegians should use a different name for our legal and socially recognized unions, I wouldn't accept it. I would assume that I am being asked because others feel that I don't deserve the same name that everyone else gets. So why should I cater to other's bigotry? And if it's not bigotry that's at issue, then why on Earth would anyone care if a certain someone else is using the same term that they are? Maybe if someone had a rational explanation of why they don't want gays to use the term marriage, I'd understand. But I have yet to hear one.
    Sorry, I'm rejecting the "religious" argument here.
    The fact is the "LEGAL", definition is not the same as the religious one. It just so happens to have the same name.
    If you will argue that it is a religious definition being used by the state, and thus state sponsored religion.

    Then see my first post, we are on the same team.
    If you reject that argument, then don't use it.

    By definition the legal term does not include gay couples.. otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.




    ---
    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Actually, I don't think its anything to do with the word or the label at all.
    Wait.. isn't that what I said?


    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    So the argument that the meaning of the word cannot change is untrue
    It certainly is untrue..Hence, why I didn't make that argument.

    I said it is incumbent on the unaccepted group to establish it's own definition and not use the force of gov and take another name and force acceptance.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    It's just more efficient to say that there's a legal sense of 'marriage' and a religious sense. That way, all the rights for heterosexual couples, including inter-racial ones, can be applied to LGBT couples too
    Yes, it would be more efficient. However, the gov is not efficient especially where the people wish to make a distinction.

    Having "American" instead all it's hyphenated combinations would be a lot more efficient as well.
    But the distinction is desired for whatever reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    No, it efficiently and quickly provides LGBT couples a way to instantly gain the same rights as everyone else! In fact, it is the best way to enact the change - who's going to spend the next few decades to rewrite all the laws in the country to save the religious having to think a little bit!

    Redefining legal marriage is constitutional and it is the most efficient way to provide rights. It's like saying that forgiving someone is a Christian term and shouldn't be used in any legal texts in case it gets misconstrued as God doing the forgiving as opposed to the context giving rise to the meaning.

    I don't think this argument holds water and is a really a strawman used to delay the change in legislation.
    I don't think you know what a straw-man argument is. A bad argument (assuming it is) is not a straw-man.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Just to reiterate, the title issue is incorrect per above. And it isn't attempting to force social acceptance but to develop it. Racial equality took decades of awareness until even the most ardent racists would are really pro-white now, not anti-black. So it is with the Gay, and as I point out, forcing the issue might end up just causing more years of strife than not. That said, we haven't lost any wars due to the repeal of DADT, and the military forces have reported little, if any, impact so it's arguable that there's any social harm done at all.

    Also, no-one is forcing anyone to be gay but there's nothing wrong with forcing equal rights through the power of the federal government - it's what the Constitution says. It makes no distinction between race nor family history nor social standing nor wealth; why the distinction for sexual orientation?
    You just made the argument that my "title argument" was referencing. How do you not see that?

    See, you argument doesn't hold watter, because I'm not arguing to deny anyone rights. I'm arguing to give them equal legal status under a different name.
    If you are looking for the rights.. then you would be for such an argument, and 50 years from now when people say "isn't that redundant"? You can snicker.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    5. And it is too much to ask because it means a writing of a set of parallel laws.
    That is false, you don't have to re-write every law, only write a single new one.
    come on man.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  11. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,843
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I said it is incumbent on the unaccepted group to establish it's own definition and not use the force of gov and take another name and force acceptance.
    So you are arguing that when they originally decided upon inter-racial marriage, it should have been another word too?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    See, you argument doesn't hold watter, because I'm not arguing to deny anyone rights. I'm arguing to give them equal legal status under a different name.
    And I disagree because it is more efficient to use the same name. I doubt there would be much confusion using the word 'marriage' for all unions between two people. In fact, it would be more confusing to have another name altogether - and what would that name be anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If you are looking for the rights.. then you would be for such an argument, and 50 years from now when people say "isn't that redundant"? You can snicker.
    Don't need to wait - I'm snickering now!

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is false, you don't have to re-write every law, only write a single new one.
    come on man.
    Which would say, marriage is defined as a union between two people?

  12. #10
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What is wrong with it, is that trying to change the meaning implies that there is a problem with the meaning.
    There is none.
    It is unnecessarily discriminatory. That's a problem IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't think you really got my point, and instead focused on a technicality.
    If you change the term of a "lease" so that it is then really a "non lease", then you are more on track.
    If however you are thinking about redefining the terms of the lease as being unfair, then it makes more sense to make them illegal.
    But assuming that we want to keep the contract that we call leases and the alteration that we make to the definition leaves leases functioning for everyone as they always have, it makes more sense to go with the alteration.

    So likewise, assuming we want to keep the institution of marriage and the alteration to the definition will leave it functioning exactly the same for those engage in traditional marriages, it makes the most sense to just alter it. I know that the alteration in definition will leave marriage functioning exactly the same for my heterosexual marriage and the future heterosexual marriages of my children. So I have absolutely no rational reason to object to the alteration or think that the alteration would make marriage "non-marriage". My marriage would stay a "marriage" just as it has always been.

    So assuming that I both want to keep my marriage as it is (which would mean keeping the governmental recognition that it currently has) and also be fair to gays, the only option I have is to support altering the definition of marriage to include gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    How does this counter or even contend with what I said?
    You said gays should be happy with any title that would give gays the same legal benefits of marriage. But marriage is more than just a legal title.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As soon as the gov changes the meaning of the legal contract I have signed by changing the meanings of the word... I will.
    How would that force you to accept the gay lifestyle?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't buy that poll. 1K people is too small of a sample
    We should take what people have voted as evidence.
    I'll accept that.
    And I won't since those who vote in an election are not necessarily a cross-section of the whole population. If certain groups of people feel strongly that gay marriage should not be legalized, they will show up at the polls in larger numbers.

    Let's just say that it is not a fact that the majority is against gay marriage - it's a "maybe". It's kind of an irrelevant point anyway since the majority is not always in the right.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Sorry, I'm rejecting the "religious" argument here.
    That's okay. I wasn't making the religious argument. You asked why gays shouldn't just get their own definition and my response, in a nutshell, is that asking them to is discriminatory and the appropriate response to someone asking you to do something based on discrimination against you is more "screw you" than "sounds reasonable".

    As I said, if someone were to say to me "Why don't you Norwegians not use our definition of marriage and get your own term", I would not consider that a reasonable request, would take offense at the discrimination against me, and feel there is no good reason to oblige them, especially if they can't give me a rational reason why it would be a good idea why I should. I would even challenge that it's "their" term in the first place.
    Last edited by mican333; July 7th, 2012 at 11:52 PM.

  13. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    As a conservative I find myself at odd with the R's on this issue too - here's my line of reasoning.

    Republicans like to consider themselves "pro-marriage" because marriage encourages loyalty, faithfulness, commitment, and stability. Historically, "anti-gay" Republicans have characterized gays as being deviant, unstable, "anti-family" and promiscuous. So then why wouldn't they want gays to embrace the qualities and social values that they themselves promote?

    To my fellow R's that believe homosexuality is wrong, I would ask them this... "Would you rather have a gay community with a larger percentage of relationships that embrace loyalty, commitment, faithfulness, and stability? Or would you rather they stay (or become) the stereotypical unstable, promiscuous, lusting homo's you like to portray them as?

  14. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    So you are arguing that when they originally decided upon inter-racial marriage, it should have been another word too?
    I would have made the religious argument then as well. That marriage is a religious event the state recognizes etc..

    If it is a legal term only, then yes the court had no business redefining the words of a legal contract.
    If the contract was illegally discriminatory, the court should have ruled it illegal.

    Then a NEW one would have to be crafted.
    The courts should not write laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    And I disagree because it is more efficient to use the same name. I doubt there would be much confusion using the word 'marriage' for all unions between two people. In fact, it would be more confusing to have another name altogether - and what would that name be anyway?
    civil union.
    Domestic union.


    Quote Originally Posted by SHRAMAK
    Don't need to wait - I'm snickering now!
    I love snickers.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Which would say, marriage is defined as a union between two people?
    That is your position....
    what would the law read according to my position?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It is unnecessarily discriminatory. That's a problem IMO.
    Regarding the state, if it isn't unconst then it isn't a problem. "unecissary" isn't an issue legally.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But assuming that we want to keep the contract that we call leases and the alteration that we make to the definition leaves leases functioning for everyone as they always have, it makes more sense to go with the alteration.
    The point is one of distinguishing. Leases distinguish from purchasing.
    It doesn't make sense, especially if the disestablishment is still going to be made or desired to be made.

    If people want to distinguish hetro marriage from so called 'gay marriage', then it makes more sense for the established term to remain, and a new one be applied to the new guys on the block.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So likewise, assuming we want to keep the institution of marriage and the alteration to the definition will leave it functioning exactly the same for those engage in traditional marriages, it makes the most sense to just alter it. I know that the alteration in definition will leave marriage functioning exactly the same for my heterosexual marriage and the future heterosexual marriages of my children. So I have absolutely no rational reason to object to the alteration or think that the alteration would make marriage "non-marriage". My marriage would stay a "marriage" just as it has always been.
    That is true from a religious sense, but not a legal sense.
    The reason is, in the legal sense the purpose of "marriage" as it is now, is to distinguish it from other relationships.
    It even distinguishes between hetro relationships, not simply homosexual ones.

    Once that is changed, the meaning is gone and an new one established.
    So it does change the legal institution.. if it didn't, then you wouldn't be arguing for a change.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So assuming that I both want to keep my marriage as it is (which would mean keeping the governmental recognition that it currently has) and also be fair to gays, the only option I have is to support altering the definition of marriage to include gays.
    False, you could support a new legal term for gays, and accomplish both.
    Your conclusion is a biased one towards the outcome you want if you think your only option is to support that one solution.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You said gays should be happy with any title that would give gays the same legal benefits of marriage. But marriage is more than just a legal title.
    yea, if you take the religious argument.
    Otherwise.. no it is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    How would that force you to accept the gay lifestyle?
    Did I sign a contract and agree to it's terms when I got married?
    Are the terms of my marriage (IE the meanings of the words) being changed?

    Then I am being forced to accept those changes.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And I won't since those who vote in an election are not necessarily a cross-section of the whole population. If certain groups of people feel strongly that gay marriage should not be legalized, they will show up at the polls in larger numbers.

    Let's just say that it is not a fact that the majority is against gay marriage - it's a "maybe". It's kind of an irrelevant point anyway since the majority is not always in the right.
    The majority may not always be in the moral right.
    They are however always in the legal right when the laws are Dependant on the majority or an inherent reflection of the majority.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    That's okay. I wasn't making the religious argument. You asked why gays shouldn't just get their own definition and my response, in a nutshell, is that asking them to is discriminatory and the appropriate response to someone asking you to do something based on discrimination against you is more "screw you" than "sounds reasonable".
    right.. because that is what you think when you see a restroom with "boys" written on it.
    Or a locker room..

    or when you get an application and they ask your income level.

    No, it is all discrimination, and our automatic response is not "screw you".


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As I said, if someone were to say to me "Why don't you Norwegians not use our definition of marriage and get your own term", I would not consider that a reasonable request, would take offense at the discrimination against me, and feel there is no good reason to oblige them, especially if they can't give me a rational reason why it would be a good idea why I should. I would even challenge that it's "their" term in the first place.
    Yea.. try that argument with the term
    "American".

    Clearly "American" should be used by the Norwegians... They could put "made in America" on their products and then ship them to us over that long ocean.

    Your argument doesn't hold watter, the discrimination is made all the time and is completely legally valid.
    As soon as you compare apples to apples you will see this.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  15. Likes Someguy liked this post
  16. #13
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The point is one of distinguishing. Leases distinguish from purchasing.
    But you don't distinguish for the heck of it. Purchasing and leasing are so different that it is required to give them different names or else there's going to be real problems when one tries to do one or the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If people want to distinguish hetro marriage from so called 'gay marriage', then it makes more sense for the established term to remain, and a new one be applied to the new guys on the block.
    People ARE free to distinguish like that. No ones stopping YOU from using those terms. But as far as a legal distinction goes there needs to be a good reason for such distinction otherwise it's unnecessarily inefficient which will lead to a waste of tax dollars (such has having to print out "civil union" licenses as well as marriage licenses).

    Do I want to spend my tax dollars on creating a new legal union when we can just add "the new kids on the block" to the legal union that already exist? No. Should I accept that it would be a good idea regardless without someone telling me how I will be disadvantaged if we don't spend that money? No.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is true from a religious sense, but not a legal sense.
    The reason is, in the legal sense the purpose of "marriage" as it is now, is to distinguish it from other relationships.
    And it will retain that distinguishing characteristic if we allow gays to join it. There is still going to be a difference between married and unmarried couples.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Once that is changed, the meaning is gone and an new one established.
    A better meaning IMO. So what's the problem?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    yea, if you take the religious argument.
    Otherwise.. no it is not.
    There is another aspect beyond religious and legal - it's social. Atheists who marry think of their unions as something more than just a legal contract as do their friends and the rest of society. If someone was trying to pick up a woman and she said "I'm married", that is different than "I have a boyfriend" and it's not just because she and her SO are sharing tax benefits or had a ceremony in a church.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Did I sign a contract and agree to it's terms when I got married?
    Are the terms of my marriage (IE the meanings of the words) being changed?
    No. How is your marriage being changed in a way that you will recognize beyond some kind of internal response that you might have to the notion that gays can marry.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Then I am being forced to accept those changes.
    You are being forced to accept the fact that there is an alteration in the legal definition of marriage - that's just accepting reality.

    But you originally said that it's an attempt from the "gay movement to force social acceptance of their lifestyle onto the rest of the population through the power of the gov". So again I ask, how are you being forced to accept the gay lifestyle? Aren't you just as free to disagree with the gay lifestyle as you always were?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The majority may not always be in the moral right.
    They are however always in the legal right when the laws are Dependant on the majority or an inherent reflection of the majority.
    Yeah. But that doesn't mean, per your original argument, that it's not "too much to ask" to ask gays to get a separate term. They are under no moral obligation to respect the wants of the majority just because it is the majority (if it is the majority, that is). As I have argued, it IS too much to ask.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    right.. because that is what you think when you see a restroom with "boys" written on it.
    Or a locker room..or when you get an application and they ask your income level.

    No, it is all discrimination, and our automatic response is not "screw you".
    No. If the discrimination makes sense, then the appropriate response IS "sounds reasonable."

    But someone asking me to "get your own term" based on my ethnicity, I would conclude that it is not reasonable discrimination and be more likely to say "screw you".



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yea.. try that argument with the term
    "American". Clearly "American" should be used by the Norwegians... They could put "made in America" on their products and then ship them to us over that long ocean.

    Your argument doesn't hold watter, the discrimination is made all the time and is completely legally valid.
    As soon as you compare apples to apples you will see this.
    I can see that you aren't responding to the argument I made. So let me repeat it:

    As I said, if someone were to say to me "Why don't you Norwegians not use our definition of marriage and get your own term", I would not consider that a reasonable request, would take offense at the discrimination against me, and feel there is no good reason to oblige them, especially if they can't give me a rational reason why it would be a good idea why I should. I would even challenge that it's "their" term in the first place.

    Does that argument say that all discrimination is illegal? No
    Does that argument say that all discrimination is wrong? No

    Does that argument say that if one perceives that others requests that they "get their own term" is not based on a valid moral and/or rational basis and appears to be based on bigotry against them, isn't "screw you" a more appropriate response that "sounds reasonable"? Yes, it does. Seriously, if my argument is incorrect then I SHOULD heed the request that I use a different term for my union because I am of Norwegian descent based on nothing other than the desire of certain people that I do so. So I should do that or should I say "screw you". And please don't respond by overgeneralizing my argument - address the argument I actually made. Should I or should I not heed that request?
    Last edited by mican333; July 8th, 2012 at 01:03 PM.

  17. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But you don't distinguish for the heck of it.
    Right, because "African/Asian/Indian- American" is sooooo necessary to any gov function it must be included on every application known to man?

    No, the gov does distinguish for the heck of it. Or more precisely because the people want to.

    Why the intolerance to all the hetro people out there that you refuse to allow them their legal Hyphenation (IE distinction) as a group, but allow all these others? What a bigoted argument to refuse to allow the gov to recognize a persons cultural heritage as distinct from all others.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Purchasing and leasing are so different that it is required to give them different names or else there's going to be real problems when one tries to do one or the other.
    The point is, people want to make a distinction even if there is no "legal" difference in the rights involved. So, if you change "marriage" to mean "any two people", then the people will want anther term created to reflect the distinction of "between man and woman". The distinction is not wrong, or illegal, and thus it is more "efficient" to keep the current term and create a new term that is non-distinct.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    People ARE free to distinguish like that. No ones stopping YOU from using those terms. But as far as a legal distinction goes there needs to be valid legal reason for such distinction otherwise it's unnecessarily inefficient which will lead to a waste of tax dollars (such has having to print out "civil union" licenses as well as marriage licenses).
    it's what the people want, and it has electrolytes. efficiency is not a major concern to the gov. Nor a valid argument against a distinction the people want.

    Also, paper is paper the ink doesn't cost more to print "civil union".
    That argument is ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Do I want to spend my tax dollars on creating a new legal union when we can just add "the new kids on the block" to the legal union that already exist? No. Should I accept that it would be a good idea regardless without someone telling me how I will be disadvantaged if we don't spend that money? No.
    Great, go vote that way then.
    However, "because you want" doesn't mean the majority doesn't want something else, and isn't a reason for the majority to change.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And it will retain that distinguishing characteristic if we allow gays to join it. There is still going to be a difference between married and unmarried couples.
    Wow.. way to miss the point.
    The point was that it is used to distinguish between more than just gays and straits.
    The difference is important to the majority.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    A better meaning IMO. So what's the problem?
    Not better, just different.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I can also accomplish both by letting gays marry.
    Yes, but you were acting like it was some force of logic or reason that you MUST support that one option. It isn't. If you want the legal effect then you can also support equal legal terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    There is another aspect beyond religious and legal - it's social. Atheists who marry think of their unions as something more than just a legal contract as do their friends and the rest of society. If someone was trying to pick up a woman and she said "I'm married", that is different than "I have a boyfriend" and it's not just because she and her SO are sharing tax benefits or had a ceremony in a church.
    So you want the state to be the arbitrator of "true love"?

    Really? That seems to be a very bad idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No. How has your marriage changed?
    That doesn't follow. Are you denying that the terms of my contract would change?


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You are being forced to accept the fact that there is an alteration in the legal definition of marriage. But you are not forced to accept the gay lifestyle. You are free to be as anti-gay as you care to be.
    If the goal was to be anti-gay.. you would have a point.
    But it isn't. The goal is to be pro hetro union. I don't have to be anit-gay to do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Yeah. But that doesn't mean, per your original argument, that it's not "too much to ask" to ask gays to get a separate term. They are under no moral obligation to respect the wants of the majority just because it is the majority (if it is the majority, that is). As I have argued, it IS too much to ask.
    What, by arguing that it's
    1) inefficient
    2) not what the minority wants.

    But then you argue that the minority has not moral obligation to respect the majority, that is a poor foundatino to then argue the majority needs to respect the minority.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No. If the discrimination makes sense, then the appropriate response IS "sounds reasonable."

    But someone asking me to "get your own term" based on my ethnicity, I would conclude that it is not reasonable discrimination and be more likely to say "screw you".
    And from the flip side, a small group of people demanding that the vast majority allow their legal contract to be edited against their will.. is not reasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Does that argument say that all discrimination is illegal? No
    Does that argument say that all discrimination is wrong? No
    RIIIGHT.
    So you need to support that it is illegal and is wrong, because you keep waving the word "discrimination" as though it is a magic wand that makes anything which falls under it distasteful.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Yes, it does. Seriously, if my argument is incorrect then I SHOULD heed the request that I use a different term for my union because I am of Norwegian descent based on nothing other than the desire of certain people that I do so. So I should do that or should I say "screw you".
    you can respond however you want. That response is not an argument in the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As I said, if someone were to say to me "Why don't you Norwegians not use our definition of marriage and get your own term", I would not consider that a reasonable request, would take offense at the discrimination against me, and feel there is no good reason to oblige them, especially if they can't give me a rational reason why it would be a good idea why I should. I would even challenge that it's "their" term in the first place.
    This analogy doesn't resemble this debate at all.

    1) you can't make the argument that the "term" is not to hetro's at all, unless you are going to appeal to the religious argument. The matter is plainly settled as a legal term. If it were not, you would not be arguing to CHANGE THE DEFINITION!
    Geez.. how is this hard?

    If in the end your argument is "I want to change it" then the counter argument of "I don'" is equally legit.

    You don't want a distinction, but the people do, That is enough justification for a legal definition to distinguish.




    Challenge
    Support the claim that "marriage" was designed so as to reflect bigotry.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  18. #15
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    I deleted a few of my responses due to redundancy.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The point is, people want to make a distinction even if there is no "legal" difference in the rights involved. So, if you change "marriage" to mean "any two people", then the people will want anther term created to reflect the distinction of "between man and woman".
    And they are free to personally use one if they so choose. Not that you need it, but you have my permission to refer to same-sex unions as "gay marriage" as opposed to "marriage" for the rest of your life.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The distinction is not wrong, or illegal, and thus it is more "efficient" to keep the current term and create a new term that is non-distinct.
    As I've already said, there will still be a difference between married and non-married people so the term will still be distinct.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    it's what the people want, and it has electrolytes. efficiency is not a major concern to the gov. Nor a valid argument against a distinction the people want.
    Let me put it this way. I am forwarding the premise that "The most efficient use of tax dollars is always desirable". If you agree with the premise, then you have to provide a reason why there is a greater concern than efficiency with this issue. If you don't agree that efficiency is important and any random waste of tax dollars is acceptable to you then we will have to agree to disagree on this point and should debate this particular point no further.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Also, paper is paper the ink doesn't cost more to print "civil union".
    No, but devising a new form costs more money than not devising a new form.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not better, just different.
    I disagree. But regardless, change is not bad (or good) just because it's change. So yeah, there will be a change in the definition. And you can hold the opinion that it's a bad change but if it's just your opinion and nothing more, then I say "your opinion is noted". But I see no reason why I should feel the same and I definitely see no reason why gay couples should agree with you and accept any request to accept a different term for their unions.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes, but you were acting like it was some force of logic or reason that you MUST support that one option. It isn't. If you want the legal effect then you can also support equal legal terms.
    Right. But my argument for it is more than legal. I'm saying it is morally right to change the definition of marriage to include gays.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So you want the state to be the arbitrator of "true love"?

    Really? That seems to be a very bad idea.
    You really miss my arguments some time. I said there's a SOCIAL aspect to the term marriage which would be denied gays if they are forced to use a separate term.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That doesn't follow. Are you denying that the terms of my contract would change?
    Yes. And now I ask that you support that YOUR contract would change. Or else drop this argument (retract it).

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If the goal was to be anti-gay.. you would have a point.
    But it isn't. The goal is to be pro hetro union. I don't have to be anit-gay to do that.
    The goal is to point out that your claim that you would be forced to accept the gay lifestyle has not been supported. So either tell me specifically how your attitude would be changed by force or quit trying to defend that argument. Support or retract.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    But then you argue that the minority has not moral obligation to respect the majority, that is a poor foundatino to then argue the majority needs to respect the minority.
    Everyone has to respect everyone else' rights. No one has to respects anyone else's wants.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    RIIIGHT.
    So you need to support that it is illegal and is wrong, because you keep waving the word "discrimination" as though it is a magic wand that makes anything which falls under it distasteful.
    MT, please ease up on the hyperbole and address me in a more respectful tone - similarly to how I have been addressing you in this debate.

    As far as your accusation that I forward that everything that is "discrimination" is bad, support or retract.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    you can respond however you want. That response is not an argument in the least.
    But I asked you how you think I should respond to it. Since you won't answer it, I will say that "screw you" is the appropriate response. If you disagree, then make your rebuttal.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) you can't make the argument that the "term" is not to hetro's at all, unless you are going to appeal to the religious argument. The matter is plainly settled as a legal term. If it were not, you would not be arguing to CHANGE THE DEFINITION!
    I'm arguing from moral terms. Neither side has a moral right to claim the term as their own exclusively and I think the law should reflect that.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Challenge
    Support the claim that "marriage" was designed so as to reflect bigotry.
    I never made that argument.
    Last edited by mican333; July 8th, 2012 at 02:30 PM.

  19. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,843
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is your position....
    what would the law read according to my position?
    How about "all statutes regarding marriage equally apply to civil unions"?

    Here's an interesting thought:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	3q0mkm.jpg 
Views:	49 
Size:	56.4 KB 
ID:	3193

  20. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    And they are free to personally use one if they so choose
    We are also free to do it legally.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    As I've already said, there will still be a difference between married and non-married people so the term will still be distinct.
    no, it will not be as distinct. Or specifically, not in a way that people have been using all this time.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Let me put it this way. I am forwarding the premise that "The most efficient use of tax dollars is always desirable". If you agree with the premise, then you have to provide a reason why there is a greater concern than efficiency with this issue. If you don't agree that efficiency is important and any random waste of tax dollars is acceptable to you then we will have to agree to disagree on this point and should debate this particular point no further.
    As long as the gov reflects what people want, it isn't a "waste".
    Just because you don't want it, doesn't mean it is automatically a waste of money.
    As long as people want to make a distinction, then a term will exist and will be reflected.
    So either way a new term will be needed. Which makes it even as far as I'm concerned.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No, but devising a new form costs more money than not devising a new form.
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I disagree. But regardless, change is not bad (or good) just because it's change. So yeah, there will be a change in the definition. And you can hold the opinion that it's a bad change but if it's just your opinion and nothing more, then I say "your opinion is noted". But I see no reason why I should feel the same and I definitely see no reason why gay couples should agree with you and accept any request to accept a different term for their unions.
    I would think the burden of proof rests on the person arguing for the change. If you rely only on your opinion.. then your opinion is noted.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Right. But my argument for it is more than legal. I'm saying it is morally right to change the definition of marriage to include gays.
    As long as the gov is protecting both equally, the gov job is completed.
    It is not the gov job to make people think a certain way, and so it's laws shouldn't be used to tip the balance of social morality. I would argue that the gov can't achieve such a thing anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You really miss my arguments some time. I said there's a SOCIAL aspect to the term marriage which would be denied gays if they are forced to use a separate term.
    Yet, you have welcomed me to continue that social aspect as normal even with the term change.
    ... no, your contradicting yourself, which one do you want?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Yes. And now I ask that you support that YOUR contract would change. Or else drop this argument (retract it).
    My contract was formed with the intention of distinguishing it from all other contracts/relationships that were not like it.
    If you include a group that was not originally included, my contract is altered and no longer serves its original purpose.

    good or bad, you can not argue that it isn't changing.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The goal is to point out that your claim that you would be forced to accept the gay lifestyle has not been supported. So either tell me specifically how your attitude would be changed by force or quit trying to defend that argument. Support or retract.
    I would have contractually accepted it if my contract is changed to include it.

    Suppose I say that I have a moral objection to gay marriage, and would not personally engage in any contract that would equate my biblical relationship with that of an unbiblical relationship.

    When I entered the terms of my contractual marriage, it reflected what I feel is a biblical relationship. The change proposed does not IMO. Thus, by changing the definition of my contract after it has been engaged you are forcing legal acceptance of a term I never intended to agree too, or legally accept.

    Make sense?

    You are arguing from the personal side, as though I would be forced to hug every gay couple and congratulate them.
    I'm arguing from the legal standpoint. You can't really separate the two. When you sign on the dotted line of a contract, you are accepting the terms. (Yes?)

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    MT, please ease up on the hyperbole and address me in a more respectful tone - similarly to how I have been addressing you in this debate.
    O.K. just watch your use of bigotry and discrimination.
    If you say you will say "screw you" as a valid response to bigotry, and one of your official responses/stances to me is "screw you". I'm sure you can see the what that means.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As far as your accusation that I forward that everything that is "discrimination" is bad, support or retract.
    I'll retract if you answer this question.
    Have you in this thread responded as though making a legal distinction in name only between "gay-marriage
    and "marriage" is morally wrong?

    If you have, and I believe you have, then you have also used discrimination to imply that it was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But I asked you how you think I should respond to it
    Why should I care how you respond?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you disagree, then make your rebuttal.
    A rebuttal to "screw you"?
    I don't believe one is needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm arguing from moral terms. Neither side has a moral right to claim the term as their own exclusively and I think the law should reflect that.
    Your arguing naming rights? It is silly to say that one name is superior to another. It is only a name.
    If you want the rights, then the name doesn't matter.

    If you want legal efficiency, then that is not reasonable because the people want to make a distinction, evidenced by the fact that the distinction exists at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I never made that argument.
    You said that you would reply "screw you" if the argument for something appeared to be based on bigotry.
    So, if one argues to keep the current definition of marriage, then the definition of marriage must have been formed out of bigotry.
    If not, then it is not bigotry to support maintaining the definition.

    ---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    How about "all statutes regarding marriage equally apply to civil unions"?
    Yea.. see, pretty simple and efficient.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Here's an interesting thought:
    how is an untrue statement interesting?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  21. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,843
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yea.. see, pretty simple and efficient.
    Can it be? That we agree?

  22. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Can it be? That we agree?
    Certainly.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  23. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    381
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why Republicans are wrong on the gay marriage issue

    I would think that the very concept of setting up Civil Unions to be be the legal equivalent of marriage for Gay people would be segregation. Isn't it just another form of "separate but equal" that wouldn't actually be equal? I'm pretty sure no one will ever propose to his/her boyfriend/girlfriend by saying "Will you civilly unite with me?"
    "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something."-Plato

 

 
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 116
    Last Post: January 26th, 2013, 05:38 PM
  2. Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: October 17th, 2011, 05:43 AM
  3. Gay Marriage, Gay Adoption
    By LeeshaForeverr in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 327
    Last Post: August 17th, 2008, 02:01 PM
  4. Gay Marriage
    By Booger in forum Politics
    Replies: 287
    Last Post: January 30th, 2008, 01:09 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •