Front Office Football Central  

Go Back   Front Office Football Central > Main Forums > Off Topic
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Statistics


View Poll Results: Should Gays be allowed to legally marry one another?
Yes 139 92.05%
No 12 7.95%
Voters: 151. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-23-2013, 06:59 PM   #101
Autumn
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bath, ME
Frankly I've never understood the legal argument against polygamy. It looks like a system that is often abused, yes, from what little I know, and clearly an expression of a patriarchal society. And it would give the IRS some extra work to figure out. But fundamentally I don't see why it necessarily needs to be illegal. So that seems a natural element to include on the slippery slope. Maybe there's some good argument about it, I've never really read much on the issue. It's funny that the argument about marriage needing to be based on Christian values doesn't get applied to Mormons.
Autumn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 07:12 PM   #102
Draft Dodger
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Keene, NH
to preserve the sanctity of marriage, I believe that all marriages should be conducted by an Elvis impersonator
__________________
Mile High Hockey
Draft Dodger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 07:19 PM   #103
JediKooter
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Diego via Sausalito via San Jose via San Diego
If this shit wasn't happening: Former Child Bride 'Escapes' FLDS Community With Children - Yahoo! News I really don't see what the problem is with polygamy. If a man thinks he's man enough to handle multiple wives, have at it. Same if a woman thinks she can handle multiple husbands. Just don't bitch about getting nagged all the time by your 5 wives or complain that your 5 husbands don't leave the toilet seat down.
__________________
I'm a San Diego Chargers fan, of course I'm an atheist

Coming this summer to a movie theater near you: The Adventures of Jedikooter: Part 4
JediKooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 07:36 PM   #104
SteveMax58
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Voted yes because all people deserve the same rights (or punishments as it were).

I almost voted no simply because I think all marriages should be technically classified as Civil Unions and given the same rights & benefits but not called marriages as that has religious connotation. And the more we can keep separate religion & state the better off we are.

My only reason for voting yes is because I look at the poll "as it stands today".
SteveMax58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 08:59 PM   #105
M GO BLUE!!!
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
I had a dream once that I was dating a woman who was beautiful and wealthy. She then informed me that while she loved me, she had someone else in her life who was very interested in meeting me. She introduced me to her wife, who was even hotter. They wanted to marry me so they could have a man in their lives.

I was really pissed when I woke up from that dream.
M GO BLUE!!! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:25 PM   #106
EagleFan
General Manager
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Mays Landing, NJ USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedKingGold View Post
Marriage = no.

Civil union/domestic partnership w/ all legal rights granted to married couples = yes.

I used to say that but then I realized. WTF does wording matter?

A marriage is a marriage. Let them get married if they choose. If Westboro Baptist doesn't see them as married (or *insert church here* feels the same way) that is their right but as far as the law is concerned they are married and that is what counts to them (I doubt that any gay couple gives a crap if certain religious groups don't 'recognize' their marriage; hell, the catholic church doesn't recognize my wife's marriage to the point where they wouldn't let her take communion at her own mother's funeral because a female methodist minister married us; we say screw them).
__________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
This space for rent.
EagleFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:38 PM   #107
RainMaker
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedKingGold View Post
Are we really throwing up our hands about a "word"? Who cares what the relationship is called so long as same sex and opposite sex couples are provided the same rights and opportunities by the government.

Well you are the one throwing your hands up over a word. It matters to you for some reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedKingGold View Post
The First Amendment also provides religious entities rights too and those rights need to be respected along with the rights of gay men and women.

Nothing about gay marriage restricts the rights of religious entities. If you are religious, don't marry someone of the same sex.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:45 PM   #108
RainMaker
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMax58 View Post
I almost voted no simply because I think all marriages should be technically classified as Civil Unions and given the same rights & benefits but not called marriages as that has religious connotation. And the more we can keep separate religion & state the better off we are.

Marriage really isn't a religious thing. It was historically used as a way of determining inheritance, maintaining lineage, and what individual rights a person had. Religion didn't enter the picture till much farther down the road.

Marriage as part of religion is a recent tradition. It was originally used for many of the same reasons the government uses it today. A set of right and benefits for individuals. I'm fine with religions want to hold their own ceremonies and do their own things (as long as it's legal). But it really has nothing to do with the government and those groups trying to take ownership of it are revising history.

Last edited by RainMaker : 01-23-2013 at 09:46 PM.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:48 PM   #109
DanGarion
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Orange, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleFan View Post
hell, the catholic church doesn't recognize my wife's marriage to the point where they wouldn't let her take communion at her own mother's funeral because a female methodist minister married us; we say screw them).

See this is the issue I have with churches. How the hell do the know, let alone care how she got married? Is there some person there with a clipboard checking off names and telling people what they can and can't do. I went to a catholic church for a couple years in my early twenties and if I had walked up to take communion no one would have known whether or not I was baptized or not in the religion.
__________________
Los Angeles Dodgers SF 49ers Anaheim Angels
Check out the FOFC Groups on Facebook! and Reddit!
DON'T REPORT ME BRO!
Come Join the Peanuts and Cracker Jack Baseball League (PCJBL)

Last edited by DanGarion : 01-23-2013 at 09:50 PM.
DanGarion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:50 PM   #110
RainMaker
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by finketr View Post
Is this really true? I mean look at our dict..president and his mandate that churches pay for contraception and birth control in direct violation of their consciences.

Can an employer choose not to extended benefits to a Civil-union couple?

Health insurance is a pass through cost that the employee ultimately pays for. It is part of their salary. This is no different than telling an employee that they are not allowed to spend their paycheck on soft drinks or fast food. The Church in your example is not paying for anything.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 11:40 PM   #111
ISiddiqui
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum View Post
I am just pointing out that there is a large portion of the population that has a religious belief that the term marriage is sacred,

This argument ignores the quite obvious fact that there is a large portion of the population that isn't religious who hold the term marriage sacred as well. Religious folk aren't the only ones who believe certain terms of statuses are sacred. Sometimes are just so powerfully embedded within a culture that they attain a level of sacredness.

Furthermore, there are quite a growing number of the population that has a religious belief, holds the term marriage sacred, and believes that it is Godly to extend that right (or sacrament) to homosexuals.

And finally, in the 1950s there was a large portion of the population that had a religious belief that marriage is sacred and people of different races marrying was not part of that sacredness. We going to make laws to assuage them? I'm glad we finally decided that wasn't an option.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages"
-Tennessee Williams
ISiddiqui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 02:21 AM   #112
RainMaker
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum View Post
I am just pointing out that there is a large portion of the population that has a religious belief that the term marriage is sacred, and that to use it as a legal term to define a union they believe is a sin goes against their belief.

And nothing is stopping them from keeping marriage as something sacred in their religion. They are not required to attend a same-sex wedding, or hold them in their places of worship. Something being "sacred" to a segment of the population does not allow for discrimination against the rest. Wine is sacred in certain religions, should it be banned from the rest of us? That's sort of the same theory.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 04:33 AM   #113
RedKingGold
College Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker View Post
Well you are the one throwing your hands up over a word. It matters to you for some reason.

Not really. If same-sex couples want to advise others that they are married, I would have no issue with that. I think, however, it would make more sense for the government to avoid the whole "marriage" term altogether because there is a significant part of the population who identifies it as a religious term. Why set yourself up for inevitable lawsuits concerning the separation of church and state?

Quote:
Nothing about gay marriage restricts the rights of religious entities. If you are religious, don't marry someone of the same sex.

You know that, and I know that but do they know that?

Last edited by RedKingGold : 01-24-2013 at 04:34 AM.
RedKingGold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 04:41 AM   #114
Izulde
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
The 6 No votes don't surprise me in the least.
__________________
2006 Golden Scribe Nominee
2006 Golden Scribe Winner
Best Non-Sport Dynasty: May Our Reign Be Green and Golden (CK Dynasty)

Rookie Writer of the Year
Dynasty of the Year: May Our Reign Be Green and Golden (CK Dynasty)
Izulde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:09 AM   #115
Marc Vaughan
SI Games
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Melbourne, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedKingGold View Post
Not really. If same-sex couples want to advise others that they are married, I would have no issue with that. I think, however, it would make more sense for the government to avoid the whole "marriage" term altogether because there is a significant part of the population who identifies it as a religious term. Why set yourself up for inevitable lawsuits concerning the separation of church and state?

I have no problem with that myself .... IF the government then stops giving special treatment to people who are 'married' and require them to also have civil government ceremonies to get their tax breaks etc.

Essentially reducing marriage to a religious only ceremony with no significance outside of that (after all the tax situation etc. which marriage has presently is a lack of separation of church and state etc.).
Marc Vaughan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:18 AM   #116
RainMaker
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedKingGold View Post
Not really. If same-sex couples want to advise others that they are married, I would have no issue with that. I think, however, it would make more sense for the government to avoid the whole "marriage" term altogether because there is a significant part of the population who identifies it as a religious term. Why set yourself up for inevitable lawsuits concerning the separation of church and state?

You know that, and I know that but do they know that?

If it's about religion, why are they not upset when Atheists get married at the courthouse? Why is there not an equal push to force them to call their marriage a civil union? I guess I just feel the marriage is a religious term is a copout for them. If this was truly about preserving their tradition, they should be equally appalled if an Atheist is considered married.

Marriage isn't a religious term either. And I don't think a group of people of any belief should be able to come together, take ownership of something that others have used long before, and claim they are the only ones who can have it. To me this is like a religion claiming that wine is part of their religion and that no one should be able to have it unless they are religious.

Ultimately I don't care what it's called as long as everyone is the same in the government's eyes. If they want to call everyone's marriage a civil union, so be it. And religious groups can do what they want in their own private ceremonies. And that doesn't just go for same-sex marriages, it goes for all types of marriage. I feel this isn't much different than demanding that interracial marriages be called civil unions because marriage is a white thing.

Last edited by RainMaker : 01-24-2013 at 05:19 AM.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 06:36 AM   #117
RedKingGold
College Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker View Post
If it's about religion, why are they not upset when Atheists get married at the courthouse? Why is there not an equal push to force them to call their marriage a civil union? I guess I just feel the marriage is a religious term is a copout for them. If this was truly about preserving their tradition, they should be equally appalled if an Atheist is considered married.

People using organized religion to support their own personal bias or for nefarious motive is not a new or different idea. Organized religion itself isn't bad, but like guns, people can use it to do that things in the name of bigotry.

Quote:
Marriage isn't a religious term either. And I don't think a group of people of any belief should be able to come together, take ownership of something that others have used long before, and claim they are the only ones who can have it. To me this is like a religion claiming that wine is part of their religion and that no one should be able to have it unless they are religious.

Ultimately I don't care what it's called as long as everyone is the same in the government's eyes. If they want to call everyone's marriage a civil union, so be it. And religious groups can do what they want in their own private ceremonies. And that doesn't just go for same-sex marriages, it goes for all types of marriage. I feel this isn't much different than demanding that interracial marriages be called civil unions because marriage is a white thing.

FWIW, the government should label all "marriages" as civil unions to get out of this quandary all together. Give all couples the same label and the same benefits. Like it or not, a significant amount of the populous identify marriage as a religious term, so why not skip the debate and start fresh with something new that applies to all couples?
RedKingGold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 07:29 AM   #118
Blackadar
Retired
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedKingGold View Post
FWIW, the government should label all "marriages" as civil unions to get out of this quandary all together. Give all couples the same label and the same benefits. Like it or not, a significant amount of the populous identify marriage as a religious term, so why not skip the debate and start fresh with something new that applies to all couples?

There is no quandary. It seems that you want to adopt the term marriage for only religious ceremonies, but that's not up to you or your religion or the "significant amount of the populous". My wife and I are of two *very* different religions and we got married in a hotel (neutral ground) by a JoP, but someone who told me to my face that my marriage was invalid because it wasn't a religious ceremonly would not like the confrontation that would ensue. I'm not going to let people try to corrupt, condemn or confiscate the term "marriage" because they want it to be something within a narrow definition that isn't correct by historical or general use standards.

Last edited by Blackadar : 01-24-2013 at 07:30 AM.
Blackadar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 07:30 AM   #119
OldGiants
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Location, Location, Location
I don't know the answer. However, I do have questions that have not really been addressed in any debate I've read.

First, I understand the feel-good, we need to make gays equal before the law feelings. However, they are feelings, not truth. Gay couples would be happier if they could marry (and divorce, of course) like man-woman marriages. So? I'd be happier with food stamps, but what is the benefit to the public of me having them?

So, what is the social contract here? What do I, as an ordinary member of the public, get out of this deal? With a traditional marriage, the government gives tax breaks and other support opportunities to a couple to raise children. Fair enough, kids cost money and time. I'm willing to help you and yours since I got help for mine and ours.

I don't see raising children as a the most significant grievance in the gay marriage debate, so I don't understand why giving tax breaks to gays is needed. Fairness and equality is something I've known as a farce since I --the whitest, fat-est , perhaps poorest, kid in HS in 1968 -- applied for a United Negro College Fund scholarship (on the SAT test form. I just checked the box.) and would have won one if only I met the racial criteria. That was a shit-storm of outrage at me for doing it.

So again, what is the public benefit, or benefit to/for the general public, of allowing gay marriage?

I truly don't see that part of the deal.
__________________
"The case of Great Britain is the most astonishing in this matter of inequality of rights in world soccer championships. The way they explained it to me as a child, God is one but He's three: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I could never understand it. And I still don't understand why Great Britain is one but she's four....while [others] continue to be no more than one despite the diverse nationalities that make them up." Eduardo Galeano, SOCCER IN SUN AND SHADOW
OldGiants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 07:46 AM   #120
digamma
Torchbearer
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Along the Los Angeles River
Ok I will play on your terms:

1. Increased government revenue for additional marriage licenses.

2. Increased sales tax revenue for wedding expenses.

3. Stimulation of local economies (many small businesses) with increased number of weddings.

4. Increased revenue for divorce related court fees.

5. Divorce lawyers have more work, as do marriage counselors, etc.

Just a few benefits off the top of my head. These in addition to the intangible benefits or indirect benefits (increased productivity because of a happier home life).
digamma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 07:48 AM   #121
Marc Vaughan
SI Games
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Melbourne, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGiants View Post
So, what is the social contract here? What do I, as an ordinary member of the public, get out of this deal? With a traditional marriage, the government gives tax breaks and other support opportunities to a couple to raise children. Fair enough, kids cost money and time. I'm willing to help you and yours since I got help for mine and ours.
If that is purely the case though why do married couples get treated differently for tax purposes even if they don't have kids? ... the same thing with regards to if one of them was in the military and killed in action, how is their partner treated afterwards etc.

This is about equality and treating people fairly - I don't think they're asking for any more than that.
Marc Vaughan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 08:13 AM   #122
Suburban Rhythm
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGiants View Post
I don't know the answer. However, I do have questions that have not really been addressed in any debate I've read.

First, I understand the feel-good, we need to make gays equal before the law feelings. However, they are feelings, not truth. Gay couples would be happier if they could marry (and divorce, of course) like man-woman marriages. So? I'd be happier with food stamps, but what is the benefit to the public of me having them?

So, what is the social contract here? What do I, as an ordinary member of the public, get out of this deal? With a traditional marriage, the government gives tax breaks and other support opportunities to a couple to raise children. Fair enough, kids cost money and time. I'm willing to help you and yours since I got help for mine and ours.

I don't see raising children as a the most significant grievance in the gay marriage debate, so I don't understand why giving tax breaks to gays is needed. Fairness and equality is something I've known as a farce since I --the whitest, fat-est , perhaps poorest, kid in HS in 1968 -- applied for a United Negro College Fund scholarship (on the SAT test form. I just checked the box.) and would have won one if only I met the racial criteria. That was a shit-storm of outrage at me for doing it.

So again, what is the public benefit, or benefit to/for the general public, of allowing gay marriage?

I truly don't see that part of the deal.

What do you get out of an unknown man-woman getting married?
What is the public benefit of allowing straight marriages?
__________________
"Do you guys play fast tempos with odd time signatures?"
"Yeah"
"Cool!!"
Suburban Rhythm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 08:46 AM   #123
SteveMax58
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker View Post
Marriage really isn't a religious thing. It was historically used as a way of determining inheritance, maintaining lineage, and what individual rights a person had. Religion didn't enter the picture till much farther down the road.

Marriage as part of religion is a recent tradition. It was originally used for many of the same reasons the government uses it today. A set of right and benefits for individuals. I'm fine with religions want to hold their own ceremonies and do their own things (as long as it's legal). But it really has nothing to do with the government and those groups trying to take ownership of it are revising history.

Understood on the origination of marriage as a concept but its taken on a completely different definition in US vernacular. Once vernacular has morphed the definition it isn't easy to get back to the original definition & sometimes its just as well to use a new term thats less associative.

No different than a lot of words that are not considered appropriate such as the word retarded being applied to a person that is mentally handicapped.
SteveMax58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 09:16 AM   #124
ISiddiqui
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by digamma View Post
Ok I will play on your terms:

1. Increased government revenue for additional marriage licenses.

2. Increased sales tax revenue for wedding expenses.

3. Stimulation of local economies (many small businesses) with increased number of weddings.

4. Increased revenue for divorce related court fees.

5. Divorce lawyers have more work, as do marriage counselors, etc.

Just a few benefits off the top of my head. These in addition to the intangible benefits or indirect benefits (increased productivity because of a happier home life).

And those are just the financial benefits. There are intangible benefits such as the increased happiness of those individuals who now can get married and feel as they are treated equally.

An interesting thing to do is to actually read the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education. It doesn't have much to do with the fact that blacks would get facilities that were less equal than the whites, and more to do with the fact that seperationism made blacks feel like an inferior race and denied them equal protection in the manifestation of their being second class citizens. This is not much different.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages"
-Tennessee Williams
ISiddiqui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 10:28 AM   #125
BrianD
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Appleton, WI
Going back to the polygamy part of this discussion, I seriously wonder if we won't have that legal discussion back on the table in our lifetimes. We are at a point where a family with children almost needs two working parents, but having a parent that stays home with the kids also has benefits. It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually go the route of having two working parents and a third staying at home with the kids.
BrianD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 10:35 AM   #126
DanGarion
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Orange, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackadar View Post
There is no quandary. It seems that you want to adopt the term marriage for only religious ceremonies, but that's not up to you or your religion or the "significant amount of the populous". My wife and I are of two *very* different religions and we got married in a hotel (neutral ground) by a JoP, but someone who told me to my face that my marriage was invalid because it wasn't a religious ceremonly would not like the confrontation that would ensue. I'm not going to let people try to corrupt, condemn or confiscate the term "marriage" because they want it to be something within a narrow definition that isn't correct by historical or general use standards.

Thank you, this is the same exact point I was attempting to make earlier, but worded much better.
__________________
Los Angeles Dodgers SF 49ers Anaheim Angels
Check out the FOFC Groups on Facebook! and Reddit!
DON'T REPORT ME BRO!
Come Join the Peanuts and Cracker Jack Baseball League (PCJBL)
DanGarion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 10:47 AM   #127
BrianD
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Appleton, WI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackadar View Post
My wife and I are of two *very* different religions and we got married in a hotel (neutral ground) by a JoP, but someone who told me to my face that my marriage was invalid because it wasn't a religious ceremonly would not like the confrontation that would ensue. I'm not going to let people try to corrupt, condemn or confiscate the term "marriage" because they want it to be something within a narrow definition that isn't correct by historical or general use standards.

I'm in the same situation, but my take on the "invalid" comment would be completely different. The State tells me that my marriage is valid, so anyone who tries to tell me their God doesn't consider it valid would only receive pity from me. In fact, I would prefer that people who have this view tell me so. I can put them on the list of people who are too small-minded to be worth my time and move on.
BrianD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 10:56 AM   #128
Lathum
Favored Bitch #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Madeira, Oh
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGiants View Post
I don't know the answer. However, I do have questions that have not really been addressed in any debate I've read.

First, I understand the feel-good, we need to make gays equal before the law feelings. However, they are feelings, not truth. Gay couples would be happier if they could marry (and divorce, of course) like man-woman marriages. So? I'd be happier with food stamps, but what is the benefit to the public of me having them.

How can you say it isn't truth? They are being denied the same rights as fellow Americans because of their sexual orientation.

Was segrigation not truth? Women voting? Prohibition?

I don't see how you can make a statement like that, makes no sense to me.
Lathum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 11:13 AM   #129
BrianD
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Appleton, WI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathum View Post
How can you say it isn't truth? They are being denied the same rights as fellow Americans because of their sexual orientation.

Was segrigation not truth? Women voting? Prohibition?

I don't see how you can make a statement like that, makes no sense to me.

I would imagine he didn't mean "truth", he meant "Truth". Religious "Truth" doesn't always agree with the notion of human rights...sadly.
BrianD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 11:46 AM   #130
larrymcg421
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
We shouldn't be looking for a public benefit to allow rights. We should look for a public benefit if we want to deny rights. If there is no public benefit, then the right should be allowed.
__________________
"If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you." - Isaac Jaffee, Sports Night

Tracking Shots: A Movie Review Blog
larrymcg421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 11:52 AM   #131
larrymcg421
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
__________________
"If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you." - Isaac Jaffee, Sports Night

Tracking Shots: A Movie Review Blog
larrymcg421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 01:34 PM   #132
NorvTurnerOverdrive
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
1. marriage is dumb

2. it was born in a time when women were considered property. it's basically a land deed to the cooch

3. the system is backwards. we shouldn't be incentivizing procreation. and idk how much of the court system is tied up with marital/divorce nonsense but i'd guess it's a lot
NorvTurnerOverdrive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 01:35 PM   #133
JediKooter
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Diego via Sausalito via San Jose via San Diego
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive View Post
1. marriage is dumb

2. it was born in a time when women were considered property. it's basically a land deed to the cooch

3. the system is backwards. we shouldn't be incentivizing procreation. and idk how much of the court system is tied up with marital/divorce nonsense but i'd guess it's a lot

What Norv said.
__________________
I'm a San Diego Chargers fan, of course I'm an atheist

Coming this summer to a movie theater near you: The Adventures of Jedikooter: Part 4
JediKooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 01:37 PM   #134
M GO BLUE!!!
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Izulde View Post
The 6 No votes don't surprise me in the least.

Nope.

It seems the more likely someone is to say that the government can't infringe upon their rights, the more likely they are to want to deny other people rights that they freely enjoy.
M GO BLUE!!! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 01:38 PM   #135
DanGarion
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Orange, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive View Post
1. marriage is dumb

2. it was born in a time when women were considered property. it's basically a land deed to the cooch

3. the system is backwards. we shouldn't be incentivizing procreation. and idk how much of the court system is tied up with marital/divorce nonsense but i'd guess it's a lot

1. No.
2. Not today.
3. It's not just about procreation.

I do understand the point you are trying to make though.
__________________
Los Angeles Dodgers SF 49ers Anaheim Angels
Check out the FOFC Groups on Facebook! and Reddit!
DON'T REPORT ME BRO!
Come Join the Peanuts and Cracker Jack Baseball League (PCJBL)

Last edited by DanGarion : 01-24-2013 at 01:39 PM.
DanGarion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 01:46 PM   #136
NorvTurnerOverdrive
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanGarion View Post
3. It's not just about procreation.
because monogamy is invalid without a gov't stamp?
NorvTurnerOverdrive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 01:49 PM   #137
DanGarion
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Orange, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive View Post
because monogamy is invalid without a gov't stamp?

No because having rights to visit your significant other as they lay in a coma after a near death accident and being legally allowed to provide for them and make legal decisions for them isn't allowed without a gov't stamp.
__________________
Los Angeles Dodgers SF 49ers Anaheim Angels
Check out the FOFC Groups on Facebook! and Reddit!
DON'T REPORT ME BRO!
Come Join the Peanuts and Cracker Jack Baseball League (PCJBL)
DanGarion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 01:50 PM   #138
M GO BLUE!!!
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive View Post
because monogamy is invalid without a gov't stamp?

What's beautiful is polygamy is invalid with a gov't stamp, but if you don't make it official you can do anything you want with as many people as you want!
M GO BLUE!!! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 01:53 PM   #139
NorvTurnerOverdrive
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
that's what living will's are for.

and it is for procreation. that's why it was incentivized in the u.s.
NorvTurnerOverdrive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 01:53 PM   #140
Blackadar
Retired
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
Quote:
Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!! View Post
It seems the more likely someone is to say that the government can't infringe upon their rights, the more likely they are to want to deny other people rights that they freely enjoy.

Bingo
Blackadar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 01:56 PM   #141
DanGarion
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Orange, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive View Post
that's what living will's are for.

and it is for procreation. that's why it was incentivized in the u.s.

Not everyone has the time, money, or understanding for a living will. And like I said I understand your point, I realize that procreation makes tax payers. But that isn't the only reason why people get married or want to get married.
__________________
Los Angeles Dodgers SF 49ers Anaheim Angels
Check out the FOFC Groups on Facebook! and Reddit!
DON'T REPORT ME BRO!
Come Join the Peanuts and Cracker Jack Baseball League (PCJBL)
DanGarion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 02:01 PM   #142
NorvTurnerOverdrive
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
on the back of your license have, 'in result of my incapacitation please consult my baby mama. she's my on the regular ho.'

or some such. problem solved
NorvTurnerOverdrive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 02:42 PM   #143
Crapshoot
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
I'm shocked by this vote to some extent. I expected it to be pro-gay marriage, but 90%+ in favor.
Crapshoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 03:05 PM   #144
stevew
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
I saw some polling the other day that was suggesting that like 70%ish of the people didn't think Roe v Wade should be overturned.
stevew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 03:12 PM   #145
ISiddiqui
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanGarion View Post
Not everyone has the time, money, or understanding for a living will. And like I said I understand your point, I realize that procreation makes tax payers. But that isn't the only reason why people get married or want to get married.

Exactly. Marriage is a one-stop-shop for your spouse to get a whole host of rights, in addition to a committed affirmation of one's love for the other person.

And if one thinks procreation isn't to be encouraged, I would point out the issues a lot of European countries are currently having with their birth rates being lower than their death rates and what that means for the financial health of the country.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages"
-Tennessee Williams
ISiddiqui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 03:17 PM   #146
Subby
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Shut up, rowech.
Biggest landslide since Stacey Kiebler HoN?
__________________
Superman was flying around and saw Wonder Woman getting a tan in the nude on her balcony. Superman said I going to hit that real fast. So he flys down toward Wonder Woman to hit it and their is a loud scream. The Invincible Man scream what just hit me in the ass!!!!!
Subby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 03:19 PM   #147
DanGarion
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Orange, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subby View Post
Biggest landslide since Stacey Kiebler HoN?

It's currently beating her by 1%.
__________________
Los Angeles Dodgers SF 49ers Anaheim Angels
Check out the FOFC Groups on Facebook! and Reddit!
DON'T REPORT ME BRO!
Come Join the Peanuts and Cracker Jack Baseball League (PCJBL)
DanGarion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 03:40 PM   #148
RainMaker
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMax58 View Post
Understood on the origination of marriage as a concept but its taken on a completely different definition in US vernacular. Once vernacular has morphed the definition it isn't easy to get back to the original definition & sometimes its just as well to use a new term thats less associative.

No different than a lot of words that are not considered appropriate such as the word retarded being applied to a person that is mentally handicapped.

It's not illegal to use the word retarded though. If the definition of a word wants to change over time, that's fine, but it shouldn't be illegal to use for a segment of the population. Like I said earlier, I don't care what we call it for everyone, just as long as it's the same.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 03:46 PM   #149
RainMaker
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGiants View Post
I don't know the answer. However, I do have questions that have not really been addressed in any debate I've read.

First, I understand the feel-good, we need to make gays equal before the law feelings. However, they are feelings, not truth. Gay couples would be happier if they could marry (and divorce, of course) like man-woman marriages. So? I'd be happier with food stamps, but what is the benefit to the public of me having them?

So, what is the social contract here? What do I, as an ordinary member of the public, get out of this deal? With a traditional marriage, the government gives tax breaks and other support opportunities to a couple to raise children. Fair enough, kids cost money and time. I'm willing to help you and yours since I got help for mine and ours.

I don't see raising children as a the most significant grievance in the gay marriage debate, so I don't understand why giving tax breaks to gays is needed. Fairness and equality is something I've known as a farce since I --the whitest, fat-est , perhaps poorest, kid in HS in 1968 -- applied for a United Negro College Fund scholarship (on the SAT test form. I just checked the box.) and would have won one if only I met the racial criteria. That was a shit-storm of outrage at me for doing it.

So again, what is the public benefit, or benefit to/for the general public, of allowing gay marriage?

I truly don't see that part of the deal.

I'm white, I don't see why blacks should be able to use children as a deduction on their income tax forms. I mean it doesn't do anything for me since I'm white.

I'm also a male, there is nothing in it for me if women are allowed to vote. I've heard Asians make bad drivers so not sure how it benefits me to allow them to obtain a drivers license.

Civil rights aren't usually a "how does it benefit me?" proposition. If you're arguing that all marriage benefits are a waste and shouldn't be given, I understand. But saying that if things don't benefit me they shouldn't be given to others is no different than the examples I gave.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 04:07 PM   #150
NorvTurnerOverdrive
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
And if one thinks procreation isn't to be encouraged, I would point out the issues a lot of European countries are currently having with their birth rates being lower than their death rates and what that means for the financial health of the country.
we should ship over a contingent of girls from my hs class because they're shitting out kids by the bushel
NorvTurnerOverdrive is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12 AM.



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.