Chit Chat

Presidential Debate

1235»

Re: Presidential Debate

  • kkitkat79 said:



    There are two parts to this. With respect to religion and marriage, I have no dog in this fight. I was under the impression that the word marriage carries a religious connotation.  I think the belief is that marriage originated from God or something like that. So I can understand the objection to calling civil unions (any civil unions not just gay) a marriage. However, as @photokitty has pointed out the church already has a separate name that can be used so now I really don't understand why people who are religious are making such a big deal.

    With respect to marriage license. If I am not mistaken a marriage license is a document that authorizes a couple to marry. My question is why do I need authorization from the state to marry? 
    There are over 1000 rights and privileges afforded to married couples, from tax benefits to making medical decisions. If you want to take advantage of these benefits from the government, the government needs to know that you hold yourselves as a married couple. Hence, a marriage license.
    I don't think this is right. A marriage license authorities you to marry, it gives you a permission to marry. If the only thing the government wanted is to know that a couple holds themselves as a married couple the only thing the couple would need to do would be filling out some kind of a form saying "hi, government, we are married now, give me benefits." As of now what happens is you say to the government "hi government, would it be ok if I marry this person?" and the government says "sure, go ahead." or "nope, I don't think so". Why should I have to ask anyone whether it is ok for me to marry whoever I want.   
    R
    1. This is a ridiculous argument to have at all. I don't necessarily disagree that the government shouldn't have a role in marriage, but they do, and have for hundreds of years. In fact, their role in marriage is so profound, as previously pointed out, that they have awarded thousands of benefits to those who choose to enter into such a contract. It's never going to be reversed, so we might as well accept that as the truth and move on ensuring that any 2 willing adults can join into this Union without prejudice. 2. A marriage license is legal recognition of a contract between two people. It does not grant you permission to wed. You can, in fact, declare yourself as married without a license, and as such the government can choose to not recognize it because it is not a state endorsed contract. We see this all the time here in Dearborn where immigrant Muslim families had religious only ceremonies out of country and then moved here. Legally, they are not recognized as married despite living as a married couple and being recognized in their religion as one. Countries like Germany also require a separate civil and religious ceremony, if you choose. However, you are free to only host a religious ceremony and forego the civil, government officiated one, but again by doing so you waive your right to whatever legal protections the government offers. 3. I'm assuming the marriage you've entered into for the last 1 year, 11 months, 1 week and 2 days is purely religious and not legally sanctioned then since you have such a big dog in this fight.
    image
  • kkitkat79kkitkat79 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited August 2015

    Because the government confirms that you are legally eligible to get married. 

    If you were 15, already married, or showed up with your brother, the government would correctly deny you the right to marry. 

    If you don't want to be legally married or ask the government for permission, just go get a sacramental wedding and skip the legal part. If you want the legal benefits of marriage, you have to go through the legal process. 
    As long as marriage involves any state-sanctioned benefits any combination of consenting adults should be eligible to get married. Some people want to be in a polyamorous relationship. Why should they not get the same legal benefits? Is their relationship less valid than mine? Why would it be correct on the part of government to deny them the right to the benefits that I and my husband enjoy?

    However, this position is politically charged. Therefore, to avoid this kind of discrimination government should not be a part of the marriage institution at all. The government should not be able to interfere in what is a very private decision.

      
     
    R
    1. This is a ridiculous argument to have at all. I don't necessarily disagree that the government shouldn't have a role in marriage, but they do, and have for hundreds of years. In fact, their role in marriage is so profound, as previously pointed out, that they have awarded thousands of benefits to those who choose to enter into such a contract. It's never going to be reversed, so we might as well accept that as the truth and move on ensuring that any 2 willing adults can join into this Union without prejudice. 2. A marriage license is legal recognition of a contract between two people. It does not grant you permission to wed. You can, in fact, declare yourself as married without a license, and as such the government can choose to not recognize it because it is not a state endorsed contract. We see this all the time here in Dearborn where immigrant Muslim families had religious only ceremonies out of country and then moved here. Legally, they are not recognized as married despite living as a married couple and being recognized in their religion as one. Countries like Germany also require a separate civil and religious ceremony, if you choose. However, you are free to only host a religious ceremony and forego the civil, government officiated one, but again by doing so you waive your right to whatever legal protections the government offers. 3. I'm assuming the marriage you've entered into for the last 1 year, 11 months, 1 week and 2 days is purely religious and not legally sanctioned then since you have such a big dog in this fight.
    Why just two? Who gave you the right to decide that a relationship between two people is any more worthy of all the benefits and protections than a relationship between three people?

    And since you brought it up, lucky me, I am in a relationship that you deem deserving so I have all the benefits of being able to marry legally. I took advantage of my privilege. But I am able to recognize this privilege and advocate for a politically feasible solution that would not exclude any one.

    There is no way it is politically feasible for a state to be able to approve all kinds of unions. So the logical solution is to remove the state's power to approve any. People should be able to privately decide what kinds of relationships that want to enter and what benefits and protections they want these relationships to have via private contracts.  
    Anniversary
  • There are benefits that are afforded to those who decide to be married. I think our health care and overall insurance structure at minimum would need a major overhaul if marriage could be between more than two adults.
  • banana468 said:
    There are benefits that are afforded to those who decide to be married. I think our health care and overall insurance structure at minimum would need a major overhaul if marriage could be between more than two adults.
    That is a very poor excuse for discrimination. If it is not possible to extend public benefits to everyone no one should get them. 

    I will be honest, I am shocked that so many people here excuse this kind of state-sanctioned discrimination. I am a libertarian and I have no problem with private discrimination. But state-level official policy of discrimination... I am outraged every time I think about it. And to see so much support for it... it makes me sad. 
    Anniversary
  • kkitkat79 said:
    banana468 said:
    There are benefits that are afforded to those who decide to be married. I think our health care and overall insurance structure at minimum would need a major overhaul if marriage could be between more than two adults.
    That is a very poor excuse for discrimination. If it is not possible to extend public benefits to everyone no one should get them. 

    I will be honest, I am shocked that so many people here excuse this kind of state-sanctioned discrimination. I am a libertarian and I have no problem with private discrimination. But state-level official policy of discrimination... I am outraged every time I think about it. And to see so much support for it... it makes me sad. 

    For what it's worth, I'm all for poly marriages being legalized. Hell, if all those sister wives want to marry what's his name, I say they should all be able to legally do it instead of just the First Wife being the only legal one. If everyone is consenting adults, have at it. Cousins, siblings. I'm being sincere -- it doesn't have any effect whatsoever on my relationship or my life so what the fuck do I care?

    The problem is, that's not how the US government is currently structured with regards to marriage. Look how long it took us to get same-sex marriage. Before that, look how long it took for interracial marriage to be sanctioned. All we can do is work within the confines of the law as it is outlined and as of right now, in order to reap the legal benefits that come with being married, a couple has to go through the legal process of getting married. 
    image
  • redoryx said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    banana468 said:
    There are benefits that are afforded to those who decide to be married. I think our health care and overall insurance structure at minimum would need a major overhaul if marriage could be between more than two adults.
    That is a very poor excuse for discrimination. If it is not possible to extend public benefits to everyone no one should get them. 

    I will be honest, I am shocked that so many people here excuse this kind of state-sanctioned discrimination. I am a libertarian and I have no problem with private discrimination. But state-level official policy of discrimination... I am outraged every time I think about it. And to see so much support for it... it makes me sad. 

    For what it's worth, I'm all for poly marriages being legalized. Hell, if all those sister wives want to marry what's his name, I say they should all be able to legally do it instead of just the First Wife being the only legal one. If everyone is consenting adults, have at it. Cousins, siblings. I'm being sincere -- it doesn't have any effect whatsoever on my relationship or my life so what the fuck do I care?

    The problem is, that's not how the US government is currently structured with regards to marriage. Look how long it took us to get same-sex marriage. Before that, look how long it took for interracial marriage to be sanctioned. All we can do is work within the confines of the law as it is outlined and as of right now, in order to reap the legal benefits that come with being married, a couple has to go through the legal process of getting married. 
    Yes, but where is your (general you) outrage at the law as it currently is? Or was it all spent on gay marriage?

    Why not advocate, just as vocally as you did gay marriage, the restructuring of any government that practices any kind of discrimination? Especially if that kind of discrimination doesn't bother you personally.

    The solution here is so easy - no one gets any special public benefits of marriage. But no, it hits you (general you) personally because you want the benefits and those other people are just ridiculous so who cares if they get nothing.    
    Anniversary
  • kkitkat79kkitkat79 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited August 2015
    chibiyui said:
    ur (general you) outrage at the law as it currently is? Or was it all spent on gay marriage?

    Why not advocate, just as vocally as you did gay marriage, the restructuring of any government that practices any kind of discrimination? Especially if that kind of discrimination doesn't bother you personally.

    The solution here is so easy - no one gets any special public benefits of marriage. But no, it hits you (general you) personally because you want the benefits and those other people are just ridiculous so who cares if they get nothing.    
    In a sane, rational world, yes.

    However, at best, what you have proposed is 50 years away.


    I also love that you get super offended on behalf of Poly relationships, but still have no problem with "polite" bigots and rape apologists. 

    It's also absolutely hilarious that this part of the discussion seems to have stemmed from someone not understanding "Separate but equal isn't actually equal."
    With respect to bigots racists and such, as I said before, I have no issue with private discrimination. People have the right to associate or not associate with whoever they want. And people are free to have whatever opinions they want. It is none of my business and does not affect me. However, I have  huge issue with state-mandated discrimination. Marriage licenses are a state-mandated discrimination.

    With respect to "separate, but equal", not once did I suggest that some legal unions have to be somehow separated from other legal unions. What I question is what we should call all of these unions.

    ETA: With respect to the bolded, are you ok with it?
     
    Anniversary
  • kkitkat79 said:


    banana468 said:

    There are benefits that are afforded to those who decide to be married. I think our health care and overall insurance structure at minimum would need a major overhaul if marriage could be between more than two adults.

    That is a very poor excuse for discrimination. If it is not possible to extend public benefits to everyone no one should get them. 

    I will be honest, I am shocked that so many people here excuse this kind of state-sanctioned discrimination. I am a libertarian and I have no problem with private discrimination. But state-level official policy of discrimination... I am outraged every time I think about it. And to see so much support for it... it makes me sad. 



    My statement is one of facts. Like it or not, insurance is a spousal benefit. There would need to be changes made to multiple aspects of society or it would be an expensive proposition.
  • kkitkat79 said:
    chibiyui said:
    ur (general you) outrage at the law as it currently is? Or was it all spent on gay marriage?

    Why not advocate, just as vocally as you did gay marriage, the restructuring of any government that practices any kind of discrimination? Especially if that kind of discrimination doesn't bother you personally.

    The solution here is so easy - no one gets any special public benefits of marriage. But no, it hits you (general you) personally because you want the benefits and those other people are just ridiculous so who cares if they get nothing.    
    In a sane, rational world, yes.

    However, at best, what you have proposed is 50 years away.


    I also love that you get super offended on behalf of Poly relationships, but still have no problem with "polite" bigots and rape apologists. 

    It's also absolutely hilarious that this part of the discussion seems to have stemmed from someone not understanding "Separate but equal isn't actually equal."
    With respect to bigots racists and such, as I said before, I have no issue with private discrimination. People have the right to associate or not associate with whoever they want. And people are free to have whatever opinions they want. It is none of my business and does not affect me. However, I have  huge issue with state-mandated discrimination. Marriage licenses are a state-mandated discrimination.

    With respect to "separate, but equal", not once did I suggest that some legal unions have to be somehow separated from other legal unions. What I question is what we should call all of these unions.

    ETA: With respect to the bolded, are you ok with it?
     
    Civil union is not equivalent in connotations to marriage.

    I am considerably more interested in keeping the rights we've earned that are being threatened (abortion, voter rights, etc) and climate change then the logistical nightmare that is legalizing polyamorous marriage.

    Particularly because unlike gay marriage, there are a ton of ramifications/fraud/abuse to consider here. Suddenly, FLDS poly marriages are legal, while it will solve some issues (welfare abuse) it will cause others (Legitimizing extremely abusive relationships)

    But the last part probably isn't a major concern of yours.
    image



    Anniversary
  • kkitkat79kkitkat79 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited August 2015
    @banana468 Insurance is a spousal benefit now. It doesn't have to be. There are tax breaks for married couples now. There is no need for them. Once you take way the state-mandated benefits there is no need anymore to make marriage legal. It does not need to be a thing. And that would solve the problem of discrimination. It is impossible to exclude someone if there is nothing to exclude them from. Don't think about it in terms of extending public benefits to another group, think about it in terms of taking public benefits away from everyone else. I don't think it would be difficult to implement.

    @chibiyui With respect to abuse. Really? Like there is no abuse in monogamous relationships? Are you assuming that poly relationships are more prone to abuse than monogamous relationships? Do you have any data to support that? 

    Just to be clear, I think the state should have nothing with the institution of marriage. However, as long as that is not the case everyone should get the same benefits. Hetero couples, gay couples, poly relationships, cousins, siblings, whatever; as long as everyone are consenting adults everyone should have the same rights. It is irrelevant how expensive it is, it is unethical for the state to discriminate and in the US I think it is unconstitutional. How anyone can rationalize state-sanctioned discrimination is beyond me.
    Anniversary
  • edited August 2015
    @kkitkat79 and yet you don't find it the least bit hypocritical that you willingly participate in an institution you abhore so much? Part of the reason governments became involved in marriage was to provide legal protections to the family unit, aka stay at home moms and their children. How do you propose family units are dealt with at the government level when it comes to insurance, property rights, death and inheritance, etcetera if we rid of government recognized marriages? Edited to fix ashore, not a word but should be:)
    image
  • @kkitkat79 and yet you don't find it the least bit hypocritical that you willingly participate in an institution you abhore so much? Part of the reason governments became involved in marriage was to provide legal protections to the family unit, aka stay at home moms and their children. How do you propose family units are dealt with at the government level when it comes to insurance, property rights, death and inheritance, etcetera if we rid of government recognized marriages? Edited to fix ashore, not a word but should be:)
    I am grossly hypocritical! No benefits for me yet because, unlucky me, my husband and I are not citizens of the same country (don't get me started on individual mobility and immigration!) However, I have every intention to take every advantage of it if and when it will be possible. 

    That does not mean that I would object to have these benefits taken away from me. I recognize how unjust the current situation is and am more than happy to give up some of my privilege to live in a freer and more just society.

    I propose private contracts to deal with all the issues you mentioned. People do it already, that is what prenups are all about. They override the prenup written for you by the government.   
    Anniversary
  • kkitkat79 said:
    @banana468 Insurance is a spousal benefit now. It doesn't have to be. There are tax breaks for married couples now. There is no need for them. Once you take way the state-mandated benefits there is no need anymore to make marriage legal. It does not need to be a thing. And that would solve the problem of discrimination. It is impossible to exclude someone if there is nothing to exclude them from. Don't think about it in terms of extending public benefits to another group, think about it in terms of taking public benefits away from everyone else. I don't think it would be difficult to implement.

    @chibiyui With respect to abuse. Really? Like there is no abuse in monogamous relationships? Are you assuming that poly relationships are more prone to abuse than monogamous relationships? Do you have any data to support that? 

    Just to be clear, I think the state should have nothing with the institution of marriage. However, as long as that is not the case everyone should get the same benefits. Hetero couples, gay couples, poly relationships, cousins, siblings, whatever; as long as everyone are consenting adults everyone should have the same rights. It is irrelevant how expensive it is, it is unethical for the state to discriminate and in the US I think it is unconstitutional. How anyone can rationalize state-sanctioned discrimination is beyond me.
    In FLDS relationships? Hells yes, which is specifically the issue I brought up.


    This is one of the issues with legalizing polygamy, it's not as logistically easy an issue as you are claiming. (Oh, and yeah but child marriages wouldn't be legal! Except they'd get "married" at 13 and then legally married at 18) It's super easy to be all "It's unethical for the state to discriminate" but in the real world where we live it's not exactly a cut and dry issue, unless you lack critical thinking skills.

    And I'm not touching the power imbalance of incestous relationships. Again, critical thinking skills are required.

    image



    Anniversary
  • chibiyui said:

    In FLDS relationships? Hells yes, which is specifically the issue I brought up.


    This is one of the issues with legalizing polygamy, it's not as logistically easy an issue as you are claiming. (Oh, and yeah but child marriages wouldn't be legal! Except they'd get "married" at 13 and then legally married at 18) It's super easy to be all "It's unethical for the state to discriminate" but in the real world where we live it's not exactly a cut and dry issue, unless you lack critical thinking skills.

    And I'm not touching the power imbalance of incestous relationships. Again, critical thinking skills are required.

    Alright, let's try using those critical thinking skills. Some people abuse welfare services. Should no one get welfare services? Some people drink and drive. Should no one drink or drive? 

    You are saying that it is ok to exclude a group of people because some people in that group are bad. Does that really make sense to you? 
    Anniversary
  • kkitkat79 said:
    chibiyui said:

    In FLDS relationships? Hells yes, which is specifically the issue I brought up.


    This is one of the issues with legalizing polygamy, it's not as logistically easy an issue as you are claiming. (Oh, and yeah but child marriages wouldn't be legal! Except they'd get "married" at 13 and then legally married at 18) It's super easy to be all "It's unethical for the state to discriminate" but in the real world where we live it's not exactly a cut and dry issue, unless you lack critical thinking skills.

    And I'm not touching the power imbalance of incestous relationships. Again, critical thinking skills are required.

    Alright, let's try using those critical thinking skills. Some people abuse welfare services. Should no one get welfare services? Some people drink and drive. Should no one drink or drive? 

    You are saying that it is ok to exclude a group of people because some people in that group are bad. Does that really make sense to you? 
    Good job reading. 

    I pointed out a specific subset notorious for breaking the law (funnily enough, including welfare abuse) and that specifically, that because of this group there are more problems and barriers to legalizing poly marriage. This is not a cut and dry issue like gay marriage. 

    Look, it's super cool that your so open minded and sooo libertarian. but the likelihood of marriage being untied from any sort of benefits or no longer recognized by the government is the same as a libertarian candidate being elected president. 0%

    Poly people will get theirs one day, but things have to change first, and trust me, trying to go out and campaign that the government should get out of marriage isn't the way to go about it.
    image



    Anniversary
  • @chibiyui, I can agree that logistics of extending public benefits to poly marriages might be very complicated and expensive. However, privatizing marriage should not be expensive at all. 


     
    Anniversary
  • I'll bite...

    Honestly, if consenting adults choose a polyamorous lifestyle, I don't care. However, I'm not going to demand that employers start covering medical insurance for additional spouses. Or that the government revamp everything for the small segment of the population who prefers being in poly relationships.

    I guess you say I used up all my outcry, but you may have noticed I used the words "choose" and "lifestyle." I believe people are gay, they don't choose to be, they just are. I also don't believe gay is a lifestyle.

    @kkitkat79 where is your outcry for all the single people who don't get the same benefits of married people??? Your arguments are exhausting and full of holes.
    :kiss: ~xoxo~ :kiss:

  • I'll bite... Honestly, if consenting adults choose a polyamorous lifestyle, I don't care. However, I'm not going to demand that employers start covering medical insurance for additional spouses. Or that the government revamp everything for the small segment of the population who prefers being in poly relationships. I guess you say I used up all my outcry, but you may have noticed I used the words "choose" and "lifestyle." I believe people are gay, they don't choose to be, they just are. I also don't believe gay is a lifestyle. @kkitkat79 where is your outcry for all the single people who don't get the same benefits of married people??? Your arguments are exhausting and full of holes.
    I just made a poll about it, the argument includes single people (I made it before I saw your comment).

    It is true that being gay is not a  choice, but being married is definitely a choice. And as things stand now some people are precluded from making this choice.

    Anniversary
  • kkitkat79 said:
    I'll bite... Honestly, if consenting adults choose a polyamorous lifestyle, I don't care. However, I'm not going to demand that employers start covering medical insurance for additional spouses. Or that the government revamp everything for the small segment of the population who prefers being in poly relationships. I guess you say I used up all my outcry, but you may have noticed I used the words "choose" and "lifestyle." I believe people are gay, they don't choose to be, they just are. I also don't believe gay is a lifestyle. @kkitkat79 where is your outcry for all the single people who don't get the same benefits of married people??? Your arguments are exhausting and full of holes.
    I just made a poll about it, the argument includes single people (I made it before I saw your comment).

    It is true that being gay is not a  choice, but being married is definitely a choice. And as things stand now some people are precluded from making this choice.

    I'm not sure that's true. The law should (and now in the U.S. does) allow any person the right to be married. Any person who identifies with any sexual orientation can legally get married to another consenting adult. It doesn't necessarily follow that any and all combinations and permutations of groups of people should be able to get married. A person in a poly relationship can still get married, just not legally to multiple partners at the same time - but they're not, as individuals, being denied any fundamental benefits or rights that other people are privy to. If they want to add a second or third person onto their will or what have you, they can do so with private contracts, as you've suggested.

    Mind you, I'm not saying I personally believe polyamorous people should not be permitted to have the state recognize their relationship; I will admit it's not really something that keeps me up at night but I have no problem with it per se. But I think for me the bigger fight is that any and all adult individuals be able to get married and have the same rights as anyone else.
    image
  • Kahlyla said:


    I'm not sure that's true. The law should (and now in the U.S. does) allow any person the right to be married. Any person who identifies with any sexual orientation can legally get married to another consenting adult. It doesn't necessarily follow that any and all combinations and permutations of groups of people should be able to get married. A person in a poly relationship can still get married, just not legally to multiple partners at the same time - but they're not, as individuals, being denied any fundamental benefits or rights that other people are privy to. If they want to add a second or third person onto their will or what have you, they can do so with private contracts, as you've suggested.

    Mind you, I'm not saying I personally believe polyamorous people should not be permitted to have the state recognize their relationship; I will admit it's not really something that keeps me up at night but I have no problem with it per se. But I think for me the bigger fight is that any and all adult individuals be able to get married and have the same rights as anyone else.
    You are right that any individual can get married. However, there are still restrictions on who they can marry which is problematic.

    The issue is more complex though. As @photokitty pointed out even if all marriages are allowed by law it does not solve the discrimination of single individuals or unmarried couples. The state still treats a group of people differently than another group of people. In some cases it is ok. For example, poor people are treated differently than rich people - poor have access to welfare services and rich do not.  That is perfectly fine. We, as a society, have an obligation to care for those less fortunate and the state has a legitimate role here. However, I don't think there is any legitimate reason to discriminate based on a marital status.
    Anniversary
  • kkitkat79 said:
    Kahlyla said:


    I'm not sure that's true. The law should (and now in the U.S. does) allow any person the right to be married. Any person who identifies with any sexual orientation can legally get married to another consenting adult. It doesn't necessarily follow that any and all combinations and permutations of groups of people should be able to get married. A person in a poly relationship can still get married, just not legally to multiple partners at the same time - but they're not, as individuals, being denied any fundamental benefits or rights that other people are privy to. If they want to add a second or third person onto their will or what have you, they can do so with private contracts, as you've suggested.

    Mind you, I'm not saying I personally believe polyamorous people should not be permitted to have the state recognize their relationship; I will admit it's not really something that keeps me up at night but I have no problem with it per se. But I think for me the bigger fight is that any and all adult individuals be able to get married and have the same rights as anyone else.
    You are right that any individual can get married. However, there are still restrictions on who they can marry which is problematic.

    The issue is more complex though. As @photokitty pointed out even if all marriages are allowed by law it does not solve the discrimination of single individuals or unmarried couples. The state still treats a group of people differently than another group of people. In some cases it is ok. For example, poor people are treated differently than rich people - poor have access to welfare services and rich do not.  That is perfectly fine. We, as a society, have an obligation to care for those less fortunate and the state has a legitimate role here. However, I don't think there is any legitimate reason to discriminate based on a marital status.
    This is just in the States though and you have to remember that laws governing marriages and common-laws are different around the world. I would urge you to look at countries that have common-laws and other universal benefits. There is still a high rate of marriage in those countries even though the Government offers other versions of committing oneself to a relationship other than a marriage certificate.
  • AprilH81 said:
    KatWAG said:
    AprilH81 said:
    If this election ends up being about social issues (and the Democrats will make sure of that) the Republican candidate is screwed.  This is where I think a strong Libertarian candidate would come in handy.  They need someone to say "I believe in "x" but I also believe that it is a personal choice, not a matter for the government to decide."  

    I am personally pro-life and ambivalent on same sex marriage.  These next few comments may not make a lot of sense as I try to formulate a good argument about my issues with the Republican party.

    1) Because most Republicans use their faith as a determining factor in their social platforms (pro-life, against gay-marriage especially) it makes them an easy target for the left, or anyone who doesn't agree with them, to paint them with the label of "woman hater", "homophobe".  I don't understand why someone who believes differently than (general) you do doesn't mean that we can't have an honest discussion/debate about the topic without resorting to name calling.  

    I know I have the ability to be pro-life but still accept, love, and support someone who has had an abortion even though I don't agree with the procedure. I think most Republicans (but certainly not all) fall into that category for most social issues.

    2) Just because someone is against illegal immigration does NOT mean that they are anti-immigrant. It means that we (generic Conservatives) want people to follow the laws and if we don't like the current immigration laws we can change them.

    Personally, I don't care how many immigrants come into the country as long as they aren't violent criminals and they "sign the guest book on the way in" instead of sneaking over the border.  

    Our border IS an issue of national security, not a humanitarian issue.  The more people who sneak over our border (north or south) means that there is a higher chance that that some dangerous people with ties to ISIS or some other terrorist organization are able to waltz right in. I think a more open immigration policy (higher numbers) with basic background checks along with tighter border control would be a good place to start.

    Everyone gets caught up in the current illegal immigrants and what to  do with them that no one will address the ongoing issue of a more or less unprotected border.  I don't know what to do with those who are already here, my gut says to send them home and have them apply to return via the more open immigration policy that I would be in favor for.  They shouldn't get "rewarded" for breaking the laws.

    I get so frustrated when the media and left leaning politicians cries "racist" when someone points out that some one is here illegally, it is such a pointless argument.

    3) I think the Republicans are going to get further when they stick to small(er) government, less spending, strong foreign relations.  This is where they are going to pick up the Independent and Democrat votes. 

    Its times like these that I miss MagicInk

    I was running errands so late to respond to this... I'm ambivalent towards same sex marriage because I believe God defines marriage, not the government and God believes marriage is between one man and one woman.

    That  being said, two men or two women getting married doesn't affect my relationship with God or affect my belief in marriage so if they want to get married that is between them and God (if they believe).

    I don't think that makes me homophobic.  I'm not scared of homosexual people, I don't discriminate, I don't judge, I don't treat anyone any different.  How would that make me homophobic?
    Out of curiosity, where in the Bible does God say that?



  • @TrixieJess, I answered this in the privatize marriage thread. You can check it out if you want, it's probably better not to have the same discussion in multiple places.
    Anniversary
  • kkitkat79 said:
    @TrixieJess, I answered this in the privatize marriage thread. You can check it out if you want, it's probably better not to have the same discussion in multiple places.
    No you didn't. I posed the question there again. You seem to not understand the question.
  • Viczaesar said:
    AprilH81 said:
    KatWAG said:
    AprilH81 said:
    If this election ends up being about social issues (and the Democrats will make sure of that) the Republican candidate is screwed.  This is where I think a strong Libertarian candidate would come in handy.  They need someone to say "I believe in "x" but I also believe that it is a personal choice, not a matter for the government to decide."  

    I am personally pro-life and ambivalent on same sex marriage.  These next few comments may not make a lot of sense as I try to formulate a good argument about my issues with the Republican party.

    1) Because most Republicans use their faith as a determining factor in their social platforms (pro-life, against gay-marriage especially) it makes them an easy target for the left, or anyone who doesn't agree with them, to paint them with the label of "woman hater", "homophobe".  I don't understand why someone who believes differently than (general) you do doesn't mean that we can't have an honest discussion/debate about the topic without resorting to name calling.  

    I know I have the ability to be pro-life but still accept, love, and support someone who has had an abortion even though I don't agree with the procedure. I think most Republicans (but certainly not all) fall into that category for most social issues.

    2) Just because someone is against illegal immigration does NOT mean that they are anti-immigrant. It means that we (generic Conservatives) want people to follow the laws and if we don't like the current immigration laws we can change them.

    Personally, I don't care how many immigrants come into the country as long as they aren't violent criminals and they "sign the guest book on the way in" instead of sneaking over the border.  

    Our border IS an issue of national security, not a humanitarian issue.  The more people who sneak over our border (north or south) means that there is a higher chance that that some dangerous people with ties to ISIS or some other terrorist organization are able to waltz right in. I think a more open immigration policy (higher numbers) with basic background checks along with tighter border control would be a good place to start.

    Everyone gets caught up in the current illegal immigrants and what to  do with them that no one will address the ongoing issue of a more or less unprotected border.  I don't know what to do with those who are already here, my gut says to send them home and have them apply to return via the more open immigration policy that I would be in favor for.  They shouldn't get "rewarded" for breaking the laws.

    I get so frustrated when the media and left leaning politicians cries "racist" when someone points out that some one is here illegally, it is such a pointless argument.

    3) I think the Republicans are going to get further when they stick to small(er) government, less spending, strong foreign relations.  This is where they are going to pick up the Independent and Democrat votes. 

    Its times like these that I miss MagicInk

    I was running errands so late to respond to this... I'm ambivalent towards same sex marriage because I believe God defines marriage, not the government and God believes marriage is between one man and one woman.

    That  being said, two men or two women getting married doesn't affect my relationship with God or affect my belief in marriage so if they want to get married that is between them and God (if they believe).

    I don't think that makes me homophobic.  I'm not scared of homosexual people, I don't discriminate, I don't judge, I don't treat anyone any different.  How would that make me homophobic?
    Out of curiosity, where in the Bible does God say that?
    image
    My thoughts exactly. So, yeah. Let's talk Biblical marriage. Because it's not remotely about love. That's a much, much more recent concept.
    image
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards