incyr and resk have asked me to share my feelings about Proposition 8 in California. My quick response was that I have mixed feelings and am on the fence. They asked for more
( Read more... )
1) Your question deals with why this is put to popular vote and why such things like wars and bailouts are not and is beyond this discussion.
2) I am not in favor of denying financial benefits of having children to anyone. I'm talking about the financial benefits of the union. The two should be separate, and if they're not, I'd be in support of separating them.
3) You make a good point, one that I have used arguing for gay marriage as a devil's advocate with friends. I will think on such things.
So, to extend from your analogy, would you support a constitutional amendment forcing people to celebrate Christmas in a way that is more traditional and in line with its religious creation? No holiday for non-christians? Mandatory church attendance on the 25th? Display of religious iconography on public airwaves? The government refuses to recognize any material, performance, or concept of Santa Claus?
I would also not support a governmental measure that legally redefines Chirstmas as the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ AND the celebration of Muhammed.
So then it's more about definitions than actions to you? Would you support a governmental measure that prohibited celebrating Christmas as the birth of Jesus Christ and Mohammed? Often times Channuka (look, I can't spell english words) falls on the same time as Christmas. Do you have a problem with federal holidays when the holidays overlap, even knowing that the Jewish federal employees will not be using it to celebrate christmas?
Can you explain more about how the Santa Claus thing is different? It's certainly a redefining of the purpose and spirit of Christmas away from the traditional and religious. I would say that the secular form of christmas is just as forbidden by the text of the bible as homosexual marriage (implied by components of it being labeled sins).
Re: hateful rantshad_0November 11 2008, 20:43:12 UTC
YOU F*CKING @$$HOLE! YOU ARE DEAD TO ME!
(I hope you realize that this is a feeble attempt to inject humor into a serious issue. No actual offense intended.)
Whether you agree or not, there are many that believe that the traditional marriage and traditional family is best for our society and thus believe that our government should give financial benefits to help and encourage such families. If the general populace does not believe that their money should go to financial benefits for a homosexual union, I believe they have that right to legislate that.One of the main problems I have with this conclusion is that it means it is acceptable for a majority to discriminate against a minority. Which, in my view, it is simply not. Individuals can make their own choices -- voting with their pocketbook, as the saying goes -- but when the government gives benefits it is generally required to do so even-handedly
( ... )
Re: hateful rantikkarus01November 11 2008, 21:16:32 UTC
"Separate but equal" always strikes me as such a bs line. It makes no sense. If they are equal, why are they separated? If they are separated, how are they equal?
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 11 2008, 21:36:45 UTC
My left speaker is separate from my right speaker. But both are equally important, even though they may both carry different signals. Separate, even different, but equal in purpose, and equally necessary to produce stereo sound.
Your left nut and right nut are separate, but equally important, and equally tender when kicked.
Whether you agree or not, there are many that believe that the traditional marriage and traditional family is best for our society and thus believe that our government should give financial benefits to help and encourage such families.
Two comments on this point:
1. We have moved way, way past a time when our society enshrined the values that you speak of when it empowered its government to recognize marriage and accord benefits to it. We have no-fault divorce laws, for example, that it make it far easier to get out of a marriage than even just 30 years ago.
2. What specifically are the financial benefits that you speak of? Social Security survivor's benefits? More to the point, there is absolutely no end of the things which I find morally objectionable for which the federal and state governments use my tax money for. For example, I think the bailout probably makes me as apesh*t as potentially allowing federal recognition of same-sex marriage makes James Dobson.
1. Perhaps, but still, one can argue that the financial benefits accorded to marriage are done so to encourage the traditional family in our society. Perhaps those benefits should be reviewed in today's culture, but that's a separate issue.
2. I'm not even sure about all the financial benefits of marriage. They vary by state, don't they? I'm speaking in general terms. And you and I agree that the government should spend WAY less than it does.
I'm interested in your point about the government financial supporting marriage to encourage families. I never really thought about it that way. However, nowadays, on the government's end of a marriage, all it is to them is a merger of two private companies - albeit on a small scale, but that's what it is to them. They could care less if a church is backing it, or if the two parties involved are in love. All they care about, all they ever care about, is the money involved.
To counter the argument for encouraging families, gay couples can and do adopt children. Strait couples can choose and do choose to not have children. If I were to ever tie myself down in a marriage, it would only be for the tax break, and I would never have children... I hate children. No one wants to see a child raised by me!
Then there's the religious side of things. I believe there are several religions/churches that recognize gay marriages now. And if our country is based on freedom of religion, why should the country not allow it?
As you can see, I have purposely stayed out of the discussion since my post, for a variety of reasons. However, I do want to make a small clarification regarding your comment
( ... )
even though I had no great desire to get into the mixubersaurusNovember 13 2008, 01:25:48 UTC
I'd say the main argument when you get right down to it is the desire by gay couples, and their straight supporters for that matter, to afford those couples the legal rights that straight couples get under the law. Visitation rights for hospital visits. Tax breaks. Power of attorney; hell even who gets stuff if one person dies. As it stands, these things default back to a person's immediate family, who may or may not approve of their relationship. Yes, some consider it an issue of love, and I do think that people who love each other should be able to say they are married. It's a cultural thing. Kind of like those weirdos who consider someone "in play" as long as they don't have a ring on their finger. It's almost like a status symbol for some people, to say that you're married to someone you love. But it really comes down to the legal aspects
( ... )
I'll just add that at points in our nation's history - at least from a tax planning perspective - it was actually to a couple's financial benefit not to be married. During those times the government did not say that by licensing and recognizing marriages they were trying to encourage a certain type of family, but rather provide a bundle of normal governmental services and legal assumptions that most married people would want. This includes things like property distribution at death, hospital visitation, Tenancy by the entirety, spousal power of attorney, surname changes, etc.
Comments 105
Reply
2) I am not in favor of denying financial benefits of having children to anyone. I'm talking about the financial benefits of the union. The two should be separate, and if they're not, I'd be in support of separating them.
3) You make a good point, one that I have used arguing for gay marriage as a devil's advocate with friends. I will think on such things.
Reply
Reply
I would also not support a governmental measure that legally redefines Chirstmas as the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ AND the celebration of Muhammed.
Reply
Can you explain more about how the Santa Claus thing is different? It's certainly a redefining of the purpose and spirit of Christmas away from the traditional and religious. I would say that the secular form of christmas is just as forbidden by the text of the bible as homosexual marriage (implied by components of it being labeled sins).
Reply
(I hope you realize that this is a feeble attempt to inject humor into a serious issue. No actual offense intended.)
Whether you agree or not, there are many that believe that the traditional marriage and traditional family is best for our society and thus believe that our government should give financial benefits to help and encourage such families. If the general populace does not believe that their money should go to financial benefits for a homosexual union, I believe they have that right to legislate that.One of the main problems I have with this conclusion is that it means it is acceptable for a majority to discriminate against a minority. Which, in my view, it is simply not. Individuals can make their own choices -- voting with their pocketbook, as the saying goes -- but when the government gives benefits it is generally required to do so even-handedly ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Your left nut and right nut are separate, but equally important, and equally tender when kicked.
Reply
"Separate but equal" is a made up phrase to avoid guilt for treating one group better than another.
Reply
Two comments on this point:
1. We have moved way, way past a time when our society enshrined the values that you speak of when it empowered its government to recognize marriage and accord benefits to it. We have no-fault divorce laws, for example, that it make it far easier to get out of a marriage than even just 30 years ago.
2. What specifically are the financial benefits that you speak of? Social Security survivor's benefits? More to the point, there is absolutely no end of the things which I find morally objectionable for which the federal and state governments use my tax money for. For example, I think the bailout probably makes me as apesh*t as potentially allowing federal recognition of same-sex marriage makes James Dobson.
Reply
2. I'm not even sure about all the financial benefits of marriage. They vary by state, don't they? I'm speaking in general terms. And you and I agree that the government should spend WAY less than it does.
Reply
To counter the argument for encouraging families, gay couples can and do adopt children. Strait couples can choose and do choose to not have children. If I were to ever tie myself down in a marriage, it would only be for the tax break, and I would never have children... I hate children. No one wants to see a child raised by me!
Then there's the religious side of things. I believe there are several religions/churches that recognize gay marriages now. And if our country is based on freedom of religion, why should the country not allow it?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment