DOMA and Prop 8 bite the dust

[scootsy]

Why are so many people talking right now about getting the government out of the marriage business? Why do people think that the private sector should/can handle it? I'm just trying to understand here. If you aren't gay and aren't in the market for a gay partner, why should you care about this?

so men shouldn't care about abortion issues, and no one should care about Guantanamo?

 

[Harambe]

Why are so many people talking right now about getting the government out of the marriage business? Why do people think that the private sector should/can handle it? I'm just trying to understand here. If you aren't gay and aren't in the market for a gay partner, why should you care about this?

I feel like can is the better question. What exactly can the private sector do differently?

 

[Gameface]

Why are so many people talking right now about getting the government out of the marriage business? Why do people think that the private sector should/can handle it? I'm just trying to understand here. If you aren't gay and aren't in the market for a gay partner, why should you care about this?

The government isn't really in the marriage business. They require you to get a marriage licence which allows for proper record keeping. That's as far into it as they are...except that they have placed criteria on who can have a marriage licence.

So, like Stoked is saying, don't give any marriage licences. Give civil union licenses. With a civil union licence two people can contractually be bonded in a union (I'd probably call it a domestic union, but whatev) that is recognized by the government and the IRS. People getting a civil union can then get married in a marriage ceremony, or not. Legally they have a union, socially/religiously/spiritually they have gotten married.

However, I see a benefit that goes beyond that and I don't think there should be any limitations to a civil union. Two sisters who live together, share expenses, etc. could benefit from a civil union by legally combining their assets. I don't see why there should be any restrictions at all.

This isn't a small government issue. It's just a better way of defining the governments role in these relationships, which is to say keeping the government from controlling private relationships for the perceived common good. My personal relationships do not have to be good for society or future generations. They have to be something I want. That is the only criteria. The government has no place getting involved in the interest of keeping taxes low (pretty horrendous argument), of making sure kids get raised right, or to protect the moral fabric of America, or funniest of all to me...conceding to the coercive acts of a mysterious supernatural entity that is bent on punishing nations for not upholding his values.

 

[Stoked]

Why are so many people talking right now about getting the government out of the marriage business? Why do people think that the private sector should/can handle it? I'm just trying to understand here. If you aren't gay and aren't in the market for a gay partner, why should you care about this?

Since you are not gay you should stop commenting on it and not care. By your own logic that is.

 

[Stoked]

The government isn't really in the marriage business. They require you to get a marriage licence which allows for proper record keeping. That's as far into it as they are...except that they have placed criteria on who can have a marriage licence.

So, like Stoked is saying, don't give any marriage licences. Give civil union licenses. With a civil union licence two people can contractually be bonded in a union (I'd probably call it a domestic union, but whatev) that is recognized by the government and the IRS. People getting a civil union can then get married in a marriage ceremony, or not. Legally they have a union, socially/religiously/spiritually they have gotten married.

However, I see a benefit that goes beyond that and I don't think there should be any limitations to a civil union. Two sisters who live together, share expenses, etc. could benefit from a civil union by legally combining their assets. I don't see why there should be any restrictions at all.

This isn't a small government issue. It's just a better way of defining the governments role in these relationships, which is to say keeping the government from controlling private relationships for the perceived common good. My personal relationships do not have to be good for society or future generations. They have to be something I want. That is the only criteria. The government has no place getting involved in the interest of keeping taxes low (pretty horrendous argument), of making sure kids get raised right, or to protect the moral fabric of America, or funniest of all to me...conceding to the coercive acts of a mysterious supernatural entity that is bent on punishing nations for not upholding his values.

I'd be on board with that.

 

[Stoked]

The government isn't really in the marriage business. They require you to get a marriage licence which allows for proper record keeping. That's as far into it as they are...except that they have placed criteria on who can have a marriage licence.

So, like Stoked is saying, don't give any marriage licences. Give civil union licenses. With a civil union licence two people can contractually be bonded in a union (I'd probably call it a domestic union, but whatev) that is recognized by the government and the IRS. People getting a civil union can then get married in a marriage ceremony, or not. Legally they have a union, socially/religiously/spiritually they have gotten married.

However, I see a benefit that goes beyond that and I don't think there should be any limitations to a civil union. Two sisters who live together, share expenses, etc. could benefit from a civil union by legally combining their assets. I don't see why there should be any restrictions at all.

This isn't a small government issue. It's just a better way of defining the governments role in these relationships, which is to say keeping the government from controlling private relationships for the perceived common good. My personal relationships do not have to be good for society or future generations. They have to be something I want. That is the only criteria. The government has no place getting involved in the interest of keeping taxes low (pretty horrendous argument), of making sure kids get raised right, or to protect the moral fabric of America, or funniest of all to me...conceding to the coercive acts of a mysterious supernatural entity that is bent on punishing nations for not upholding his values.

To me that is a quirk I have with pretty much any church/denomination. To me this life is all about free agency and the choices we make. I do not see God coming down and obliterating any country do to their choices as a group. No sins of the father crap here. We will each be judged on our own actions. Freedom and free agency go hand in hand with me.

 

[Archie Moses]

Tried to pos rep.

"You have given out too much reputation in the last 24 hours."

I'm sorry that bothered you Archie, but it was for people like yourself. Keep on keeping on, dude.

For people like me? I'm for love and tolerance, dude.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

So that right here gets me. Why does it have to be hate? Why can't it just be that he does not liek it or agree.

For example. Had a brother get into a rough life style. Booze, drugs, women...he was heading for a fast grave or a life in jail. I love my brother but I did not like the way he was living. Was my distaste rooted in hate? No and to say it was is foolish. I believe the majority of those against gay marriage fit into a similar category. Many religious folks refer to this as "love the sinner not the sin".

I will openly and freely concede that there are those against gay marriage because they are bigots and do hate gays. I believe that is the minority. Just as there are those attacking the gay marriage opponents out of bigotry and hate.

I do feel that the hate on both sides is increasing simply do to the drastic mischaraterization of each side by the other.

A lot of it is perception and language at this point. See, when you say things like "it is a sin" or Colton says "I believe homosexuals should not have the right to marry", to me that is discriminatory and hateful. You may not mean it to be in your head, but when it enters my ear holes it's very, very offensive.

It would be like me saying, "I think Mormonism is silly and ridiculous, and those that believe it are immoral and wrong, but I love them anyway." I may not mean that in a hateful way, but it's a pretty crappy thing to say and IMO hateful and rude.

See, just because you have intentions behind your opinions, does not mean I automatically have to agree with those intentions. Words matter, and what is an opinion to you and not offensive, is incredibly offensive and disgusting to me. And you telling me I can't feel this way, only because your intentions in your head are not hateful, is disingenuous and infuriating. Just like Paula Dean, she may not have meant to be racist and ****ty. But she was, thats the way it goes.

Own up to what you say and believe. Sometimes that comes with labels like hate and bigot. Them's the breaks when you stand up for what you believe in.

P.S. I pos repped Colton for you. And he negged me for the dick punch post. Sometimes you can never win I guess.

 

[Gameface]

To me that is a quirk I have with pretty much any church/denomination. To me this life is all about free agency and the choices we make. I do not see God coming down and obliterating any country do to their choices as a group. No sins of the father crap here. We will each be judged on our own actions. Freedom and free agency go hand in hand with me.

I'm making fun of Pat Robertson types who blame floods and hurricanes on immoral behaviour.

 

[Stoked]

I'm making fun of Pat Robertson types who blame floods and hurricanes on immoral behaviour.

Oh I know. Just a personal observation I have about that. It was not directed at anyone specific. Should have said that.

 

[Stoked]

A lot of it is perception and language at this point. See, when you say things like "it is a sin" or Colton says "I believe homosexuals should not have the right to marry", to me that is discriminatory and hateful. You may not mean it to be in your head, but when it enters my ear holes it's very, very offensive.

It would be like me saying, "I think Mormonism is silly and ridiculous, and those that believe it are immoral and wrong, but I love them anyway." I may not mean that in a hateful way, but it's a pretty crappy thing to say and IMO hateful and rude.

See, just because you have intentions behind your opinions, does not mean I automatically have to agree with those intentions. Words matter, and what is an opinion to you and not offensive, is incredibly offensive and disgusting to me. And you telling me I can't feel this way, only because your intentions in your head are not hateful, is disingenuous and infuriating. Just like Paula Dean, she may not have meant to be racist and ****ty. But she was, thats the way it goes.

Own up to what you say and believe. Sometimes that comes with labels like hate and bigot. Them's the breaks when you stand up for what you believe in.

P.S. I pos repped Colton for you. And he negged me for the dick punch post. Sometimes you can never win I guess.

Haha, damned if you do and damned if you don't. As for me personally I would not take that stance on mormonism as hateful. I'd take it as misguided and wrong but not hateful.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Haha, damned if you do and damned if you don't. As for me personally I would not take that stance on mormonism as hateful. I'd take it as misguided and wrong but not hateful.

Haha, yeah pretty much. I know some do think that opinion would be hateful. Again, we're screwed regardless.