User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 37

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    I think it's just an underhanded way to snub gays since the overt approach is no longer acceptable to the mainstream.

  2. #22
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    Doesn't one have to believe there is something wrong with being gay, in order to think it might hypothetically ruin society?
    In a sense of it. I believe, however, it is a common line that individually they have nothing against it, but don't believe that it is good for society to condone it. Given that is kind of my stance on drugs, I find it easier to project into.

    Keep in mind that I'm advocating not closing your mind to their concerns (rationalisations?), so that you can understand them. I have said a similar thing to those not supporting marriage under the guise of not understanding why homosexuals want it. The further polarized things become, the harder it will be to resolve. Course, you could always come to Canada... if not land of the free, the land of the equal

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    In a sense of it. I believe, however, it is a common line that individually they have nothing against it, but don't believe that it is good for society to condone it. Given that is kind of my stance on drugs, I find it easier to project into.

    Keep in mind that I'm advocating not closing your mind to their concerns (rationalisations?), so that you can understand them. I have said a similar thing to those not supporting marriage under the guise of not understanding why homosexuals want it. The further polarized things become, the harder it will be to resolve. Course, you could always come to Canada... if not land of the free, the land of the equal
    I understand why people would be against it. I don't believe everyone has to agree, much less accept it either. I just think it's silly that laws are decided based on the aforementioned opinions, when there isn't scientific reason to deny gay marriage.

  4. #24
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    I just think it's silly that laws are decided based on the aforementioned opinions, when there isn't scientific reason to deny gay marriage.
    That's based upon the assumption that laws are or should be based upon science.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    That's based upon the assumption that laws are or should be based upon science.
    It's an objective indicator of logic and rationality. That is how law should be dealt with.

  6. #26
    homo-loving sonovagun anii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    infp
    Enneagram
    9
    Socionics
    fuck
    Posts
    900

    Default

    Wasn't there a time when people thought that allowing blacks and white to marry would lead to the downfall of civilization?

    And look what that's done... it's brought us our brand new bicycle!

    There's reason to be afraid, and reason to open your heart. ~ Seal

    Refreshment for your ears: www.kexp.org

  7. #27
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post




    Segregation is discrimination.
    Well, I'd agree with you, but calling something what it isn't doesn't really strike me as segregation or discrimination. So basically, you're calling for the definition of a word to change to accommodate what you want it to mean. Which sounds like a waste of time and effort to me.

    It's like if I wanted to call an apple a pear. It's not a pear. But I shouldn't be punished for eating pears over apples. As a gay person, that's what I'd be worried about, securing my right to eat pears just like people can eat apples. Fuck all the rest of those idiots who think apples aren't pears, because I know they are and that's all that matters.

    I'm aware I completely dehumanized the gravity and importance of the situation by comparing gay marriage to fruit, but I think the analogy is easy to follow.



  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    Well, I'd agree with you, but calling something what it isn't doesn't really strike me as segregation or discrimination. So basically, you're calling for the definition of a word to change to accommodate what you want it to mean. Which sounds like a waste of time and effort to me.
    Civil unions and marriage aren't legally equal. That's the difference. I would not waste my time with semantics, if that's all it was. If civil unions had the same laws as marriage, I would be on board and the government could call it any name they wanted. All I care about, is my future wife having the same legal protections that heterosexual people have. Not the actual name of the contract. Unfortunately, there's a vast legal difference between the two and that's why marriage is being fought for, over the latter.

    More than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities are denied to gay and lesbian couples. They include, but are not limited to:

    - The right to have visitation rights when his/her partner falls ill

    - The right to make decisions on a partnerís behalf in a medical emergency

    - The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner

    -The right to share a room in a nursing home

    - Protections for families of crime victims, including the right to notice and information, to testify at sentencing and parole hearings, and to receive mental health services

    - Family health and auto insurance policies

    -After death of partner, the right to take a forced share of the estate, staying in the family home through transition protections, receiving allowances from the estate to meet current expenses, and being allowed to retain personal effects, personal property of sentimental value, and the right to drive the family car.

    -After the death of partner, the right to automatic inheritance rights, spousal preference for administering the estate, and taking care of a loved oneís remains

    -The right to ensure that his or her partnerís desire to make an anatomical gift is fulfilled if opposed by partnerís next of kin

    -The right to bring claims of wrongful death or loss of consortium when a loved oneís death results from wrongdoings

    -The right of the partner of a police officer/firefighter who was killed on the job to have access to line of duty benefits

    -The right to automatically receive wages due partner at the time of his or her death

    -The right to receive dependency benefits from the workerís compensation system or accidental death benefits from the retirement system if partner is injured or killed

    -The right for a person who is retiring to provide their pension to their surviving partner

    -The right to enter into surrogacy arrangements

    -The right to petition for partner to immigrate

    -The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy, or other means etc.

    This is why I don't support civil unions (from a purely legalistic pov):

    Marriage confers certain legal rights as given by the state. It is not a means of obtaining mass recognition for a relationship because there are certain people who will always disapprove of any relationship, regardless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual.

    Therefore this is a legal and rights issue and is not relevant to popular opinion. The constitution serves as a means of protecting the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, hence its decision should be binding. This issue of "minority rights" is also why people often equate gay rights with racial rights and basic individual rights. Personally, I don't see the difference, too.

    While religions may object to recognition of the marriage, this has nothing to do with the state because there is (theoretically at least) a separation of church and state.

    "State marriages" should be available for all as a fundamental right. Most people here agree with this. (For those who don't agree, you should read John Rawls' legal and political philosophy to remove your head from your butt.)

    These are normally called "civil unions", but I oppose this.

    The reasons being that "civil unions", being "separate and equal" from the institution of marriage, often is "separate" but seldom is "equal".

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...tml#post399089

  9. #29
    Welcome to Sunnyside Mondo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    1,996

    Default

    Jon Stewart: "What age did you choose to not be gay?"
    I support gay marriage so I think that while Huckabee is well-spoken, he is misguided.
    MBTI Type: iNTj
    Enneagram Type: 3w4 sp/sx

  10. #30
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    Civil unions and marriage aren't legally equal. That's the difference. I would not waste my time with semantics, if that's all it was. If civil unions had the same laws as marriage, I would be on board and the government could call it any name they wanted. All I care about, is my future wife having the same legal protections that heterosexual people have. Not the actual name of the contract. Unfortunately, there's a vast legal difference between the two and that's why marriage is being fought for, over the latter.
    I just think it's much easier to change the legal rights granted with a civil union than allow marriage to encompass all human beings. Look, I think it's criminal that gay couples are not allowed the same rights as married straight ones. It's absurd.

    Now, I'm not that knowledgeable about gay civil rights. But what I do see, is gays going right after marriage to include everyone, instead of trying to bring civil unions up to marriage's level in terms of civil benefits. I think the latter course would yield much better results.



Similar Threads

  1. Type Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert
    By Kiddo in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 01-22-2014, 11:32 PM
  2. Jon Stewart PWNS CNBC
    By kendoiwan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 03-15-2009, 01:49 PM
  3. Obama: Once Supported Gay Marriage
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-15-2009, 07:26 AM
  4. So what's really the big deal about Gay marriage?
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 222
    Last Post: 12-19-2008, 12:06 PM
  5. Gay marriage, adoption, related issues -- Take 2
    By Zergling in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 01:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO