|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3958 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Well, at face value, there's nothing about Christianity that should call for the death of those being legislated against. except the whole stone the fags thing. now, i agree with you. but that is not the majority christian opinion. (majority christian is different than christian majority btw.)
I agree with what you say above, but I can't agree that defining marriage as between a man and wife is hatred. It's just not. no. the definition is not inherently hatered. however, creating such a definition with the specific intent of restricting the rights, freedoms, and happiness of a group of people is hateful. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
you know, the easiest thing to do might be this:
just eliminate the benefits associated with marriage, and then no one, incuding homosexuals, can get the benefit of entering a union. probably wouldn't work, what with all the special interests and the increase of taxes (by elimination of tax-exemptions)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1313 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
I would agree.. It seems to me that to offer incentives to be married discriminates against "common law" couples.
Would you extend this to tax breaks for families with children?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
I'm honestly not sure, considering my family benefits from it, as well as from the tax credits.
But in keeping with the solution I proposed, I would have to say yes. THe problem is, when you allow tax breaks for one group, you gotta do it for most, if not all groups, which then means that the churches can become tax exempt, but all religious building then need to be tax-exempted for no support of religion to be maintained. Of course, if we did repeal all this stuff, then we might actually be able to better afford our government . . . yeah right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4089 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Ok, I took a gander
jar writes: equal protection under the law. the right to equal access to healthcare. the right to equal inheritance. the right to adopt children. the right to visitation and decisionmaking based on partnership considerations (for example:wishes regarding DNR and others). the right to equal protection in spousal abuse situations. I wouldn't solve any of those problems by allowing same sex marriage. I'd find a different way, especially since I'm one of those that doesn't want same sex couples to be able to adopt. That won't affect this issue, though, because I'm not for the constitutional amendment that's under discussion, anyway. Either way, the topic I was discussing was whether being for the amendment constitutes hatred. I think we've decided it'll stay at an impasse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5864 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
You're wanting, and so are many others, to redefine it again. Accusing those who don't want to redefine it with you of hatred seems wrong to me. Saying that people are being demeaned or discriminated against because they can't have their relationship legally called marriage seems ridiculous to me. Ok, for the last time, this is a total red herring. No one is trying to redefine marriage. Every marriage is unique and defined by the participants. No one is trying to do ANYTHING to YOUR marriage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
I wouldn't solve any of those problems by allowing same sex marriage. Then you'd be creating a separate but equal institution.
I'd find a different way, especially since I'm one of those that doesn't want same sex couples to be able to adopt. Whoops, I guess it wouldn't be equal. "We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Why do you care who the government says can get married?
quote: Why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Ok, for the last time, this is a total red herring. No one is trying to redefine marriage. Every marriage is unique and defined by the participants. No, marriage is not an individual thing, it's a cultural thing, it's something the whole culture participates in in a sense. If it didn't there would be no need for marriage at all because it is to define a couple within the culture.
No one is trying to do ANYTHING to YOUR marriage This is not about individual marriages. This isn't about YOUR marriage or anybody's marriage. This is about the meaning of a cultural institution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
This is not about individual marriages. This isn't about YOUR marriage or anybody's marriage. This is about the meaning of a cultural institution.
The meaning of a cultural institution is determined by the culture. A constitutional amendment will be about as effective as King Canute trying to hold back the tide.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The meaning of a cultural institution is determined by the culture. A constitutional amendment will be about as effective as King Canute trying to hold back the tide. Effective at what? Do you really think that those who are in favor of gay marriage outnumber those who aren't?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Do you really think that those who are in favor of gay marriage outnumber those who aren't?
"Outnumber" misses the point. They are more connected to the culture, and have been more effective in grass root organization to change the culture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
(well, my impending marriage at least... getting hitched in july). Me too, in july 8th! Second time over for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5864 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
No, marriage is not an individual thing, it's a cultural thing, it's something the whole culture participates in in a sense. If it didn't there would be no need for marriage at all because it is to define a couple within the culture. Marriage exists to provide a financial and legal linkage between partners. It's a legal contract that provides certain rights and certain responsibilities. In any case what does any of this rambling have to do with gay marriage and/or civil unions? How will it affect how existing married couples are "defined within the culture"? The answer - it won't AT ALL. Of course since "defined within the culture" is a soft meaningless statement this doesn't matter anyways.
This is not about individual marriages. This isn't about YOUR marriage or anybody's marriage. This is about the meaning of a cultural institution. Again, what effect does this have on heterosexual marriage? Oh yeah, none. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate any effect this would have on existing or future heterosexual marriages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5864 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
Holy shit. I am also getting married on july 8th.
Crazy coincidence
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024