DOMA & Prop 8 Topic

I mean, I saw Geoffrey Rush do it on the Black Pearl, so there you go.
4/8/2013 5:08 PM
Posted by deathinahole on 4/8/2013 5:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2013 4:52:00 PM (view original):
Are Justice of the Peace or ship captains religion based?
Justice of the Peace are employed by the state, so no. Marry the labia rubbers already.

Ship's captain, no. So, I suppose, it's up to him or her whether or not he or she marries them, much like if he or she was a religion.

I know that if I were in charge of a ship, and I wanted return customers, I'd marry them.

So what does this mean?

"A civil union is the state recognizing you are a couple.
Marriage is the church recognizing you are a couple."

 

4/8/2013 5:28 PM
Kind of confusing since the government recognizes marriages differently than civil unions.
4/8/2013 5:32 PM
Maybe Canada is different, eh?
4/8/2013 5:38 PM
You know what; caught on an archaic meaning that I was arguing against. Fair statement.

Listen to what I mean, and not what I say.
4/8/2013 5:47 PM
Today's skim through the thread.

Gay people can't get married because of polygamy (again), you can't be "married" unless it happens in a church (WTF?), and some people don't want gay marriage (so I guess a legislature should never do anything unless it has 100% approval).
4/8/2013 6:09 PM
LISTEN TO WHAT I MEAN, NOT WHAT I SAY!!!!!!!!
4/8/2013 6:15 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2013 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/7/2013 9:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 4/6/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Too long, I know.

I used to be against gay marriage.  I grew up in a conservative household, where I was taught that homosexuality was a choice, an abomination in the eyes of God, unnatural, etc.  I was still againt gay marriage into adulthood - I hadn't heard anything or met anyone compelling enough to make me reconsider my position.  I'm a heterosexual man, happily married to a beautiful woman.  One of my wife's bridesmaids was her sister, who is gay.  My wife's sister and her partner have been together, faithful and happy for over seven years now.  During those seven years, I have known heterosexual couples who have done everything there is to do to destroy "the sanctity of marriage" - adultery, divorce, rampant lying, inattentive or wholly abusive parenting, etc.  My sister-in-law and her partner remain faithful to one another, take care of their nieces and their nephews, and love each other and the rest of the family purely and unconditionally.  They were there on my wedding day, sharing in the celebration, wishing us well, letting us know they would be there for us as family for the rest of our lives.  I would like to be there at their wedding day to do the same.  In my mind, no two people deserve to be married more than they do.  In my mind, no two people would better represent what it means to be married than they would.  I simply haven't heard anything remotely approaching a justification for looking them in the eye and telling them "You can't be married.  You can't have a wedding.  You don't deserve the same recognition, by cultural definition AND under the law, that any two heterosexual people (who are qualified to be married only in that they are of legal age, can sign their name and pay a licensing fee) deserve."
Good, a real life example.  

I'd ask them two questions:
1.  Do they want to be married?
2.  Is their relationship somehow less because they aren't?
Funny how this was ignored.
Not ignored - I was out all day in meetings, but I'll answer.  Yes and yes.

Why did you propose to your wife?  Probably because you love her.  Probably because you knew, at some point in the future, she would require marriage to continue the relationship.  Would your relationship have been less had you never been married?  Perhaps you should explain to your wife how ridiculous it is to think that marriage somehow made your relationship more than it was prior to marriage.  Perhaps you should have taken this stand prior to getting married, and seen where it led.  It is a special kind of convenient, from the confines of one's own marriage, to say marriage is no big deal.   Marriage is important because it is the ultimate commitment you can make to someone, in the eyes of almost everyone.  If you deny someone the right to marriage, you deny them the right to make that ultimate commitment.  If "super-marriage" was invented tomorrow, you can bet my wife would start planning our "super-wedding".  And I would get a tux and show up.  Not because I think the act itself enhances our relationship, but because I know our relationship is enhanced because she feels it is.

Here's the thing - these types of relationships are almost always about feelings.  How you feel about your partner, how you feel about your relationship with your partner, etc.  Are you proposing that we codify into law what is and is not acceptable to feel about your relationship in certain circumstances?  If not, "does it make your relationship less" is an empty argument and should be discarded as such.

And here's the insidious little part of the argument against gay marriage, given that there is a clear lack of logic to it:

The only argument against, repeated ad nauseum, is that it would change the definition of marriage.  Even though the definition of marriage has changed over and over again.  Nobody is arguing against the prior changes, because gay people still weren't allowed to be married.  What it seems it boils down to is a fear that it changes the definition of one's individual marriage.  That one's marriage (relationship) is somehow less, now that the big, bad "THEY" are allowed to do it too.
4/8/2013 10:24 PM
The main argument against it is the people dont want it. You can argue if their motivations are valid, but that is the reason.

Gay marraige has gotten its *** kicked in the ballot box.

And the movement now wants instant gratification. They want it all and they want it now.

Again with civil unions gays are not experiencing punitive discrimination.

So why are we deciding to make this a Federal issue?
4/9/2013 12:11 AM
Yea, if you refuse service to any group based on race, age, or sex, it's discrimination and it's against the law.  The law is in place BECAUSE there are people in our society who don't see other as equal.  That's the point.

I don't think that law should exist. You should be able to do what you want with your business. You don't like certain people, no one should force you to have to do business with them, no matter how ridiculous or ignorant your reason may be.

I am 100 percent against any law which tells someone they can't make a business decision because of someone's race, ethnicity, belief, gender, or whatever.

Besides this, many businesses already take part in very similar practices.

Ever hear of "ladies night" at the bar, where women get in free but men have to pay? That's discriminatory practices, but I do not know of anyone who has filed a lawsuit over it. Technically, the men shouldn't have to pay to have the same service as women based simply on the fact that they are a man, but yet it happens all the time.

How about discounts for "senior citizens"? They should be illegal because they discriminate against younger people based on nothing but their age.

If you think either of these is okay, imagine if it were about race instead of gender or age.  Maybe at the bar it's called "white night" and white people get in free but everyone else has to pay, and see how long you think that would take to see a lawsuit and national news coverage. Imagine if white people got a discount but everyone else had to pay regular price.

Really the only thing it's about is whether or not people make an issue of it and can get the backing of the popular culture, as I illustrated directly above. When it's about gender discrimination or age discrimination, few people seem to care but when it's about race everyone goes crazy.

Face it: Discrimination runs rampant in America and everyone turns a blind eye unless it's about a hot button issue like race or homosexuality.
4/9/2013 9:05 AM
Posted by examinerebb on 4/8/2013 10:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2013 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/7/2013 9:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 4/6/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Too long, I know.

I used to be against gay marriage.  I grew up in a conservative household, where I was taught that homosexuality was a choice, an abomination in the eyes of God, unnatural, etc.  I was still againt gay marriage into adulthood - I hadn't heard anything or met anyone compelling enough to make me reconsider my position.  I'm a heterosexual man, happily married to a beautiful woman.  One of my wife's bridesmaids was her sister, who is gay.  My wife's sister and her partner have been together, faithful and happy for over seven years now.  During those seven years, I have known heterosexual couples who have done everything there is to do to destroy "the sanctity of marriage" - adultery, divorce, rampant lying, inattentive or wholly abusive parenting, etc.  My sister-in-law and her partner remain faithful to one another, take care of their nieces and their nephews, and love each other and the rest of the family purely and unconditionally.  They were there on my wedding day, sharing in the celebration, wishing us well, letting us know they would be there for us as family for the rest of our lives.  I would like to be there at their wedding day to do the same.  In my mind, no two people deserve to be married more than they do.  In my mind, no two people would better represent what it means to be married than they would.  I simply haven't heard anything remotely approaching a justification for looking them in the eye and telling them "You can't be married.  You can't have a wedding.  You don't deserve the same recognition, by cultural definition AND under the law, that any two heterosexual people (who are qualified to be married only in that they are of legal age, can sign their name and pay a licensing fee) deserve."
Good, a real life example.  

I'd ask them two questions:
1.  Do they want to be married?
2.  Is their relationship somehow less because they aren't?
Funny how this was ignored.
Not ignored - I was out all day in meetings, but I'll answer.  Yes and yes.

Why did you propose to your wife?  Probably because you love her.  Probably because you knew, at some point in the future, she would require marriage to continue the relationship.  Would your relationship have been less had you never been married?  Perhaps you should explain to your wife how ridiculous it is to think that marriage somehow made your relationship more than it was prior to marriage.  Perhaps you should have taken this stand prior to getting married, and seen where it led.  It is a special kind of convenient, from the confines of one's own marriage, to say marriage is no big deal.   Marriage is important because it is the ultimate commitment you can make to someone, in the eyes of almost everyone.  If you deny someone the right to marriage, you deny them the right to make that ultimate commitment.  If "super-marriage" was invented tomorrow, you can bet my wife would start planning our "super-wedding".  And I would get a tux and show up.  Not because I think the act itself enhances our relationship, but because I know our relationship is enhanced because she feels it is.

Here's the thing - these types of relationships are almost always about feelings.  How you feel about your partner, how you feel about your relationship with your partner, etc.  Are you proposing that we codify into law what is and is not acceptable to feel about your relationship in certain circumstances?  If not, "does it make your relationship less" is an empty argument and should be discarded as such.

And here's the insidious little part of the argument against gay marriage, given that there is a clear lack of logic to it:

The only argument against, repeated ad nauseum, is that it would change the definition of marriage.  Even though the definition of marriage has changed over and over again.  Nobody is arguing against the prior changes, because gay people still weren't allowed to be married.  What it seems it boils down to is a fear that it changes the definition of one's individual marriage.  That one's marriage (relationship) is somehow less, now that the big, bad "THEY" are allowed to do it too.
Yeah, you're right(somewhat).  Both my marriages came because it was important to THEM.    The ring and the certificate were not important to ME.

Perhaps that's why I don't really care about this issue one way or the other.    My concern, repeated many times, is where this change of definition would lead.  I don't really care if Jack and Joe or Jill and Jane get married.   I'm concerned that the change from one man/one woman to "Let's just make people happy and equal" will lead to all Jack, Joe, Jill and Jane marrying one another.   And, as stated, maybe that's not such a bad thing.  I'd just like to know before say "Yeah, go ahead. Be happy."
4/9/2013 9:18 AM
So gay marriage itself is harmless but you're worried that polygamy might be harmful? Ok, let's not allow polygamy.
4/9/2013 9:42 AM
4/9/2013 9:51 AM
Yet it's pretty clear that gay marriage and polygamy are not the same thing. We don't have to lump them in together.
4/9/2013 9:59 AM
Posted by bistiza on 4/9/2013 9:05:00 AM (view original):
Yea, if you refuse service to any group based on race, age, or sex, it's discrimination and it's against the law.  The law is in place BECAUSE there are people in our society who don't see other as equal.  That's the point.

I don't think that law should exist. You should be able to do what you want with your business. You don't like certain people, no one should force you to have to do business with them, no matter how ridiculous or ignorant your reason may be.

I am 100 percent against any law which tells someone they can't make a business decision because of someone's race, ethnicity, belief, gender, or whatever.

Besides this, many businesses already take part in very similar practices.

Ever hear of "ladies night" at the bar, where women get in free but men have to pay? That's discriminatory practices, but I do not know of anyone who has filed a lawsuit over it. Technically, the men shouldn't have to pay to have the same service as women based simply on the fact that they are a man, but yet it happens all the time.

How about discounts for "senior citizens"? They should be illegal because they discriminate against younger people based on nothing but their age.

If you think either of these is okay, imagine if it were about race instead of gender or age.  Maybe at the bar it's called "white night" and white people get in free but everyone else has to pay, and see how long you think that would take to see a lawsuit and national news coverage. Imagine if white people got a discount but everyone else had to pay regular price.

Really the only thing it's about is whether or not people make an issue of it and can get the backing of the popular culture, as I illustrated directly above. When it's about gender discrimination or age discrimination, few people seem to care but when it's about race everyone goes crazy.

Face it: Discrimination runs rampant in America and everyone turns a blind eye unless it's about a hot button issue like race or homosexuality.
I think you thinking the law shouldn't exist makes you an ***.  How do you know you don't like a person? Based on their sex, age, race?

I get why you think most people are bad people now.  You should realize not everyone is like you, though.

When a bar promotes a "ladies night" you realize it's not because they hate men, right? 
4/9/2013 10:19 AM
◂ Prev 1...51|52|53|54|55...358 Next ▸
DOMA & Prop 8 Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.