Today's Question: Do you support same-sex marriage?

[hoopjsn]

I guess we should go ahead and allow marriage between a man and a horse too...I mean, afterall, arguments preventing a man and a horse from having sex rests in some ancient text you so flippantly reference.

Yawn. One scenario involves two consenting adults and one doesn't.

This whole "herp derp why don't we just let a man marry 'x' non-human animal/object is ridiculous".

 

[seebell]

I guess we should go ahead and allow marriage between a man and a horse too...I mean, afterall, arguments preventing a man and a horse from having sex rests in some ancient text you so flippantly reference.

In the wildness of my youth, I drank all night at a bar and woke up the next morning next to something that made a horse look good. Marriage was out of the question. Course sometimes now I think I'm married to a nag.

 

[crimsonaudio]

No one has answered my "state law" question. Are you okay with states deciding this issue themselves and the federal government working to remove all issues of "morality" from its laws and decisions?

IMO, 'equal rights' aren't a state issue, and based on virtually every SCOTUS decision in the last 150 years, legal precedence agrees.

 

[Jon]

Morality is one perspective, biological consistency is another. Gay couples cannot pass their DNA forward unless they choose unnatural means.

so we should ban in vitro fertilization and other methods for married couples who can not reproduce otherwise as well?

 

[hoopjsn]

Morality is one perspective, biological consistency is another. Gay couples cannot pass their DNA forward unless they choose unnatural means.

Neither can men who shoot blanks or women with reproductive problems. Hey, let's go ahead and deny them government benefits that go along with marriage as well.

 

[hoopjsn]

Is taking money from one person and giving it to another "infringing upon someone else's rights"? Just curious.

You mean like gay people's tax dollars that go to subsidize tax benefits for legally married couples? I'd say that certainly qualifies.

 

[2003TIDE]

Neither can men who shoot blanks or women with reproductive problems. Hey, let's go ahead and deny them government benefits that go along with marriage as well.

Best post of the night......

 

[CajunCrimson]

Let me assure you, if there were a huge demand for the kind of "wholesome" programming you're advocating (and therefore an untapped fortune of advertising revenue available for the taking), every network would be chasing it. Alas, there is no conspiracy to corrupt your daughters. The people you think are conspiring against you -- writers, directors, actors, show runners -- are sitting around Hollywood and NYC hitting their heads against the wall, asking, "Why is the only thing studios will green light?" And the answer is because it's the only thing the masses will reliably pay for.

That's capitalism, my friend. Works great for some things. Not so great for others.

You think the reason they green light it is due to capitalism? It may be a small part of it -- but it's bigger than that.

If it was about Capitalism -- then we'd see more "wholesome" programming.....That's why the biggest box office movies are the ones that the entire family can go and see. That's why American Idol, The Voice, Who's Got Talent, etc shows do so well. Why do you think that new shows like Touch do well.....there is a place for it.....

Don't underestimate the power of those in control.....

You can blow it off as people just love trash -- but it's way deeper than that. The boundaries have to keep getting tested -- it's an attempt to out outrageous the one before.....they aren't putting things on the air because it's quality -- it's just an attempt to gain a short term advantage in raunchy -- so they can make their one year splash and then move on.

Remember when we thought Beavis and Butthead was bad? Wow -- who'd have thunk it would have sunk so much lower.....

 

[Tide1986]

IMO, 'equal rights' aren't a state issue, and based on virtually every SCOTUS decision in the last 150 years, level precedence agrees.

Got it...questions of morality are okay as long as one agrees with the decision.

 

[BamaFlum]

Simple question: why must it be "marriage" and not civil unions with all rights bestowed upon the couple if this is about equal rights?

 

[CajunCrimson]

Uhh, yeah, no one mentioned changing our system of government. Not sure why you're chasing that particular straw man...


And who said we shouldn't follow whatever processes need be followed to enact equal rights for all citizens? I don't recall a single person here suggesting otherwise.

And I'm not putting words in your mouth - you're the one presupposing that same-sex marriages somehow require a different form of government than what we currently have. YOU argued that our form of government is best, I simply asked which one. If you're black, you probably don't think that the pre-1867 form of the US Government was all that great...


Possibly. Or they could simply change the tax laws, etc that would make the law apply equally to all. That said, if states wish to challenge the fedgov in this eventuality, they're free to, of course.

Actually I mentioned system of government because someone was questioning our System of Laws --

Wasn't suggesting that same sex marriage requires a different form of government -- was suggesting that to legalize it requires our current system of government be used as it has in the past -- not sure where you saw that I was suggesting a different form of government. I was responding to another poster that said that he didn't like our system of laws -- and my response was -- well what other form would you prefer to use?

Your Government evolved --and will continue to do so.....let's just let it evolve.....and when it's time -- the process will allow for the definition of Marriage to change -- not coming at this from a morality play -- I'm coming at this from a legal perspective.

 

[CajunCrimson]

Simple question: why must it be "marriage" and not civil unions with all rights bestowed upon the couple if this is about equal rights?

Because if you don't let it be "marriage" then they will continue to argue that their situation is separate but equal -- and that won't fly.

I'm afraid the answer will come down to -- the elimination of marriage......and we'll all have civil unions......

That tends to be the tactics employed by progressives.

 

[CajunCrimson]

FIFY.

That's the part I can't get - I find homosexuality to be morally wrong, but I'm NOT going to try to use the law to enforce MY morals. What happens if we get to the point that 50.1% of the population favors sharia law?

When that happens -- I can assure you Gay Marriage won't be an issue anymore.....

 

[CajunCrimson]

IMO, 'equal rights' aren't a state issue, and based on virtually every SCOTUS decision in the last 150 years, level precedence agrees.

The problem with Marriage and "States Issue" is that what happens if a Married Gay Couple from a state where it's legal moves to a state where it's not? What happens then -- not sure how to fix that problem.

 

[Tide1986]

You mean like gay people's tax dollars that go to subsidize tax benefits for legally married couples? I'd say that certainly qualifies.

Or the tax dollars of the rich that subsidize the poor? Or the tax dollars of the 50% that subsidize the other 50%? I'm not arguing for tax deductions for those who are "married", but feel free to deflect the discussion as you wish.

 

[Tide1986]

The problem with Marriage and "States Issue" is that what happens if a Married Gay Couple from a state where it's legal moves to a state where it's not? What happens then -- not sure how to fix that problem.

Psst...laws are already inconsistent among the various states.

 

[hoopjsn]

Or the tax dollars of the rich that subsidize the poor? Or the tax dollars of the 50% that subsidize the other 50%? I'm not arguing for tax deductions for those who are "married", but feel free to deflect the discussion as you wish.

The problem with that is anyone in your hypothetical 50% that supports the other 50% (disregarding the fact that the poorer 50% are subject to taxes or than income tax) is free to quit their job and collect unemployment and other public assistance.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Got it...questions of morality are okay as long as one agrees with the decision.

No, questions of morality that don't impact others aren't the gov'ts business.

 

[crimsonaudio]

The problem with Marriage and "States Issue" is that what happens if a Married Gay Couple from a state where it's legal moves to a state where it's not? What happens then -- not sure how to fix that problem.

That's the point - this is a federal issue, civil rights.

 

[Tide1986]

The problem with that is anyone in your hypothetical 50% that supports the other 50% (disregarding the fact that the poorer 50% are subject to taxes or than income tax) is free to quit their job and collect unemployment and other public assistance.

Just like those who "get their game on" by having sex with someone of the same gender can marry someone of the opposite gender to get "married" benefits. Both options are sub optimal for those involved, but the benefits are there to be had if they are willing to do what it takes.