2012-09-09, 21:58 | Link #301 | |
Juanita/Kiteless
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New England
Age: 40
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-09-09, 22:33 | Link #303 | ||
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Same-sex marriage is not widespread enough to cause some major damage to the morality of society or survival of human species, why the need for such laws anyway? Since the Big Religion that was fostering and pushing this through the legal system, shouldn't they, with their business acumen shown being able to milk millions from thier followers, sweeten the deal and make marriage as tradtional as possible, complete with marriage sacks, bethrohals and bride buying regardless of age?
__________________
|
||
2012-09-09, 22:43 | Link #304 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Doesn't apply now. And frankly it is not illegal to be childless. But so many people are stilling living in the B.C. era.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-10, 09:42 | Link #305 |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
So, on the issue of same-sex marriage and homosexuality.. As someone that leans left, I thought I'd share a conversation with my very close friend who is a a gay lawyer that grew up in a very wealthy conservative part of town in Vancouver, B.C. (Canada). His family is quite wealthy and he is only halfway out of the closet with his coworkers and his family.
I learned two things due to my somewhat a-hole style devil's advocate type queries: 1) I asked him after watching X-men 3, if a "cure" for gayness was discovered or if he could otherwise get "turned" would he do so? He admitted that based on his socio-economic status, his personal and business circles, he's ashamed to say he would. He admits it would make his life much easier. 2) Secondly, I asked whether he would be OK if instead of allowing same-sex marriage, a new status was created that was identical in every way but was labeled differently, like "committed union" -- that way marriage could continue to be defined as between a man & woman, and we'd just have to "ctrl+f" "find and replace" our existing legislature. His response "lawyered" me a little. Rationally he wouldn't have any issues with it, and he can understand why conservative religious types who believe "marriage is an institution directly tied to their beliefs of faith and his rules regarding behaviour and morality" but his point (which I agree with) is that the create of a status that is "different" works well when people are reasonable, rational, educated and tolerant. When they are not, the "different but the same" argument won't work and would continue to result in future discrimination. |
2012-09-10, 10:12 | Link #306 | |
Schwing!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central Texas
Age: 39
|
Romney and Ryan do the worst job of hating things ever...
Romney supports Obamacare provisions like pre-existing condition coverage and keeping young adults on parents plan...but a campaign aide says he does not support those things? *boggle* Quote:
|
|
2012-09-10, 10:49 | Link #307 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Labelling is discriminatory. Here is another example: what if only couple who have children can be considered "married", and all other couples are called "Pseudo-married", all other things remain the same? The impossible part, is the justification that somehow separate labelling is necessary. That married people who are the same sex needed to be isolated from those who are hetero, to keep marriages pure and untainted.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-10, 11:44 | Link #309 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
Honestly, I hate to say this, but the whole marriage issue can wait for another day. There are more critical issues at hand than the various social issues that always seem to drive these elections. |
|
2012-09-10, 11:51 | Link #310 |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
If the GOP voters care about critical issues, they would have demanded more details on how Romney is going to balance the books. The Republican Convention is proof that their supporters just don't care.
__________________
|
2012-09-10, 13:01 | Link #311 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Of course. It is within the Republicans best interest to focus on these issues, and as long as we are forced to focus on these issues, especially in the debates, the American people will never be confronted with the reality that the current Republican economic, health care, military, energy and environmental plans are absent or woefully lacking.
|
2012-09-10, 13:22 | Link #312 |
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Thought some of you would find this interesting: http://secotm.tumblr.com/post/308517...-or-is-there-a
Also, for further interestingness: http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/Cato-...Lenin-Plan.pdf Enjoy, comrades!
__________________
|
2012-09-10, 13:44 | Link #313 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
And yeah, this is the end-game of a 30 year effort by essentially the same people who brought us the 1870s, the 1890s, the 1910s, the 1930s (all depressions from reckless speculation and manipulation by unregulated banks/corporations and international trading companies). They want to return to those "good old times" where they made a lot of money and the other 90% of us took it in the backside.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-10, 14:13 | Link #314 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-09-10, 14:25 | Link #315 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 38
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-09-10, 14:57 | Link #316 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Well the hang up seems to be the word "marriage" and its modern religious meanings. The logical approach would be to take the religious part out and make that the seperate but equal section. Everything else would be civil and secular, the only added feature for a "marriage" would be religious based and that varies by religion already anyway.
__________________
|
2012-09-10, 15:08 | Link #317 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
So no, "marriage" is not religious no matter what anyone say. Not unless you want only those who have a registered religion could marry. There is nothing to separate. Religion can disappear tomorrow and it would still change nothing of legal marriage.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-10, 15:45 | Link #318 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Actual meaning and what it means to the public are not always the same thing. You can have a word that officially means one thing while it is used in public to mean something totally not related to the meaning of the word...and have that public meaning being the generally accepted meaning even if the actual definition of the word has not changed.
The ones caught up in the ideology and making the largest amount of noise are those that want to keep marriage as "sacred", thus religious. That might mean more in the United States than in other countries. We have a fairly large population that still has religious ideals in mind without being directly involved with their own religions anymore. These are the people that still hold on to the ideal or tradition of a church wedding. Regardless of what it means or doesn't mean. Some of this is just tradition. Some of it is the older style "girls dream" of the wedding dress. Some of it is that they hold a god (or gods) as a higher authority than the government and thus it is the legal paperwork that is the formality while the ceremony is the real deal.
__________________
|
2012-09-10, 19:18 | Link #319 |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
Presidential campaigns will pause to mark September 11
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8891DL20120910
__________________
|
2012-09-10, 19:54 | Link #320 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
The "Higher Authority" already spoken thousands of years ago. Then again as the West Wing TV show pointed out, people still see football players touching the skin of a pig when they watch the Superbowl.
__________________
|
|
|
|