Chit Chat

Presidential Debate

135

Re: Presidential Debate

  • sophhabobophasophhabobopha The Midwestern tundra member
    500 Love Its 1000 Comments First Anniversary Name Dropper
    banana468 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. 
    You can't be anti-gay marriage and not homophobic though. Not possible. And if by pro-life you mean "I'd never have an abortion but I fully support other women's right to do so" awesome! You don't hate women and you're also pro-choice. If you think you're entitled to control the guest list of my uterus, yup, feeling pretty hated as a woman. That is an honest discussion.
    Pro life people (I include myself in this) believe that there's a person growing in your uterus.   That person has as much of a right to be alive once in your uterus as s/he does once outside your uterus.  

    I don't hate women who disagree with me, but I'm going to disagree that a woman should be able to choose to end a life growing in there.

    However, I also understand that Republicans are not going to get elected if they take an extremely hard pro-Life stance.   Because you need more than the votes of Pro Life people to get elected.


    I agree. The moment a woman makes the choice to have sex, and then gets pregnant, she then loses the choice to end the life inside of her. It is no longer just her body at that point.

    I can disagree with those who are pro-choice and I can be against abortions but still not "hate" someone because of their opinion.

    boxxxxxxxxxx
    image
    STARMOON44
  • ohmrs2014ohmrs2014 Dirty Jerz mod
    Moderator 500 Love Its 1000 Comments Fourth Anniversary
    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?

    This is what John Kasich was saying last night, sort of.  When the question was posed to him, he started that the Bible teaches him to love everyone the same and that was how he was going to go about it.  That if one of his daughters turned out to be a lesbian, then he would support her and love her unconditionally because that's what God and the Bible preaches.
    Anniversary



    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
    hellohkbchibiyui
  • ohmrs2014 said:
    MegEn1 said:
    I'm rather sad that no one enjoyed Christie as much as I did. He had the best presence, and although the answers were short and canned (as they were going to be) I thought he went into as much detail as possible, more than most of the others. I also really did enjoy his Paul jab because Lord I can't stand Paul's stances on foreign policy and terrorism, and he seems like he just waves his hands and sticks his head into good old American soil and assumes it'll all be okay because Constitution. 

    That said, I was rolling on the floor the entire debate. Chris Wallace kept looking at the camera during Trump's answers. It was like he came into every living room in America multiple times and said "CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS GUY?" It made my night, I had to take a melatonin to get to sleep I was so jacked from cracking up. 
    My dad is a hardcore Republican and he called before to chat about the debate.  His exact words to me "These guys are clowns.  None of them are worth my vote."  I was so shocked.  He then went on to say that he wishes he watched the first debate because he wanted to see Carley take down the men.

    As to Christie, coming from NJ, he is just as much of a joke as Trump is.
    I know most NJ residents can't stand him- And that speaks volumes for him as a candidate. 

    I'm currently in Delaware and am not totally crazy about Joe Biden, but at least most residents go goo-goo over him. The same can't be said for Christie. 


    Daisypath Anniversary tickers Daisypath Anniversary tickers



    STARMOON44
  • AprilH81AprilH81 Columbus, OH member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 5 Answers
    edited August 2015
    ohmrs2014 said:
    One thing that the GOP fails to remember (and I chatted with my dad about this earlier, and he agreed, as hardcore Republican as he is), that the Constitution clearly states that there should be a separation of Church and state.

    These social issues will not make everyone happy, but they should be looked at objectively, without the influence of Religion.


    In theory that would be great, unfortunately most Christians (possibly other religions as well, I'm just speaking from my own Christian viewpoint) view the world through their religious believes.  

    (speaking in generalities here) Most Christians are pro-life because God teaches to value every life, even the lives of sinners.  It is impossible for us to separate our faith from our views because our faith DEFINES our views.
    photo composite_14153800476219.jpg
  • edited August 2015
    I am a democrat, and a little more on the liberal side.  I was appalled when one candidate said he opposed abortion even if the mother's life was at stake. I forgot who that was, but to me, that would be someone who is unelectable. I think FOX news is extremely biased.  They are going after Trump because he will not toe the line with the Republican party.  I think Donald only cares about Donald.  Donald only cares about people that think exactly as he does, and if they don't he resorts to name-calling.  I think his brash way with people will be a disaster to foreign policy.  Our allies would become our enemies. Someone with a bad temper should not be in office.
      Carson looked like he was extremely uncomfortable with the political arena.  He may have intelligence, but his ability to deliver and convey his points lacked confidence. He seems ill-equipped to deal with foreign policy.
      Mark Rubio seemed like  a good candidate, but I don't think he is ready, yet, for the presidency.  Christie is my favorite.  He seems to be concerned with the people of New Jersey.  He seems to be willing to work with the democratic party instead of stonewalling which accomplishes nothing.
      It seemed like the moderators weren't giving people they didn't think were serious candidates a shot at answering questions. Then they were goading Trump. I think they were only giving airtime to candidates we all ready know a lot about, which I found disappointing. I did appreciate the goading, though.  That will be what candidates can expect during the presidential debates, and we need to know if the person favored can stand a chance to win the election (and what the american public thinks of them). 
       I am not opposed to a republican president.  They will lose me every time over the social issues.  I also agree with ohmrs2014... they lose me with religion, too.  I am a Christian person, but if a Muslim or Jehovah's witness were to ever hold office, I would not want to abide by their religious doctrines. I feel I should be considerate with my religious views and abide by them, myself, but it is wrong to force it on others.
    hellohkbkimmiinthemittenmadamerwinsparklepants41
  • Yeah, I'm voting nope to the idea that oh I just think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage isn't homophobic. Like, mmmhhhhhmmmmm. Tell me more about how you've spurned the legal benefits of marriage to make that point. Convenient isn't it that conservatives only started arguing this when it seemed like the gays might get to join the party.
    hellohkb
  • Yeah, I'm voting nope to the idea that oh I just think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage isn't homophobic. Like, mmmhhhhhmmmmm. Tell me more about how you've spurned the legal benefits of marriage to make that point. Convenient isn't it that conservatives only started arguing this when it seemed like the gays might get to join the party.
    I'll give it a go. I think there is no reason why government should be involved in marriage. Marriage/ union/ partnership/ whatever is a private affair between two or more consenting adults. Government has no business to be meddling in that. However, as long as it does meddle everyone should get the same deal. Explain to me how this is homophobic.  
    AprilH81
  • AprilH81AprilH81 Columbus, OH member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 5 Answers
    kkitkat79 said:
    Yeah, I'm voting nope to the idea that oh I just think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage isn't homophobic. Like, mmmhhhhhmmmmm. Tell me more about how you've spurned the legal benefits of marriage to make that point. Convenient isn't it that conservatives only started arguing this when it seemed like the gays might get to join the party.
    I'll give it a go. I think there is no reason why government should be involved in marriage. Marriage/ union/ partnership/ whatever is a private affair between two or more consenting adults. Government has no business to be meddling in that. However, as long as it does meddle everyone should get the same deal. Explain to me how this is homophobic.  

    You said it better than I did.
    photo composite_14153800476219.jpg
  • STARMOON44STARMOON44 member
    Knottie Warrior 5000 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    edited August 2015
    AprilH81 said:


    kkitkat79 said:



    Yeah, I'm voting nope to the idea that oh I just think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage isn't homophobic. Like, mmmhhhhhmmmmm. Tell me more about how you've spurned the legal benefits of marriage to make that point. Convenient isn't it that conservatives only started arguing this when it seemed like the gays might get to join the party.

    I'll give it a go. I think there is no reason why government should be involved in marriage. Marriage/ union/ partnership/ whatever is a private affair between two or more consenting adults. Government has no business to be meddling in that. However, as long as it does meddle everyone should get the same deal. Explain to me how this is homophobic.  




    You said it better than I did.





    The homophobic part is when you're ambivalent about the gays getting to join in on that whole getting the same deal part. The homophobic part is also pretending in the fairy tale that anyone was arguing seriously against state marriage licenses pre-gay marriage being a thing.
  • emmaaa said:

    I go to sleep too early to watch it. But I am conservative and generally vote Republican so I DVRed it and watched some this morning and watched clips online. I need to finish the rest of the debate tonight or tomorrow morning.

    I like Rubio. I thought he had good composure and made some very good statements and points. I was disappointed by Cruz and Bush. As front-runners, they should have stood out more and had more to say.

    I like Paul but I don't consider him Presidential and I don't see him winning.

    As much as I hate that Donald Trump has made a circus of this process, I don't think as many people would have watched the debate if he weren't in it. I would never vote for him because he doesn't have any substance to what he says. I honestly think he is just here as a distraction and for our amusement. The reason he keeps getting questions that try to catch him in a gotcha moment is because everyone is just waiting for him to slip up and be "un-electable." I was not surprised when he basically said if he isn't the Republican nominee that he would run third party, even if it is a selfish move.

    And we all know Fox News is biased but let's not pretend other national news outlets aren't either.

    They are, I just couldn't believe someone would say that FOX isn't, as a PP said.
  • AprilH81AprilH81 Columbus, OH member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 5 Answers
    kkitkat79 said:
    <snip>
    The homophobic part is when you're ambivalent about the gays getting to join in on that whole getting the same deal part. The homophobic part is also pretending in the fairy tale that anyone was arguing seriously against state marriage licenses pre-gay marriage being a thing.

    I must be using a different form of homophobic than you. Just because I'm not "for" same sex marriage doesn't mean I hate gay people. I'm not an ally, but that doesn't make me an enemy. 

    According to dictonary.com Homophobic is a noun that means unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.


    photo composite_14153800476219.jpg
  • AprilH81 said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    <snip>
    The homophobic part is when you're ambivalent about the gays getting to join in on that whole getting the same deal part. The homophobic part is also pretending in the fairy tale that anyone was arguing seriously against state marriage licenses pre-gay marriage being a thing.

    I must be using a different form of homophobic than you. Just because I'm not "for" same sex marriage doesn't mean I hate gay people. I'm not an ally, but that doesn't make me an enemy. 

    According to dictonary.com Homophobic is a noun that means unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.


    If we're quoting dictionary.com now, here's their definition of marriage:
    Note that it does not exclude same-sex couples from the definition.

    Not to say that this definition is accurate, but that's my point... Once you start relying on dictionary definitions of words to bolster your argument, you've already lost.
    hellohkb
  • kkitkat79 said:
    Yeah, I'm voting nope to the idea that oh I just think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage isn't homophobic. Like, mmmhhhhhmmmmm. Tell me more about how you've spurned the legal benefits of marriage to make that point. Convenient isn't it that conservatives only started arguing this when it seemed like the gays might get to join the party.
    I'll give it a go. I think there is no reason why government should be involved in marriage. Marriage/ union/ partnership/ whatever is a private affair between two or more consenting adults. Government has no business to be meddling in that. However, as long as it does meddle everyone should get the same deal. Explain to me how this is homophobic.  

    You said it better than I did.
    The homophobic part is when you're ambivalent about the gays getting to join in on that whole getting the same deal part. The homophobic part is also pretending in the fairy tale that anyone was arguing seriously against state marriage licenses pre-gay marriage being a thing.
    I can't speak for other posters, but to me being ambivalent towards gay marriage does not mean being ambivalent towards gay couples getting the same deal as heterosexual couples.

    As I understand it, for some people the word marriage has a religious connotation. As such they have to oppose gay marriage. However, they could be perfectly fine with gay union that grants them the same rights as marriage between heterosexual couples. That said, I think religious people of denominations that believe that marriage is a religious union between a man and a woman have to be consistent. They should not regard civil union between heterosexual couple as marriage. If marriage is strictly religious then any union performed outside the church should not be considered a marriage.  

    Regarding bolded, check out libertarian position on state marriage licenses. I believe they were very serious about it.
  • kkitkat79kkitkat79 member
    Fourth Anniversary 100 Comments 100 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited August 2015
    kkitkat79 said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    Yeah, I'm voting nope to the idea that oh I just think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage isn't homophobic. Like, mmmhhhhhmmmmm. Tell me more about how you've spurned the legal benefits of marriage to make that point. Convenient isn't it that conservatives only started arguing this when it seemed like the gays might get to join the party.
    I'll give it a go. I think there is no reason why government should be involved in marriage. Marriage/ union/ partnership/ whatever is a private affair between two or more consenting adults. Government has no business to be meddling in that. However, as long as it does meddle everyone should get the same deal. Explain to me how this is homophobic.  

    You said it better than I did.
    The homophobic part is when you're ambivalent about the gays getting to join in on that whole getting the same deal part. The homophobic part is also pretending in the fairy tale that anyone was arguing seriously against state marriage licenses pre-gay marriage being a thing.
    I can't speak for other posters, but to me being ambivalent towards gay marriage does not mean being ambivalent towards gay couples getting the same deal as heterosexual couples.

    As I understand it, for some people the word marriage has a religious connotation. As such they have to oppose gay marriage. However, they could be perfectly fine with gay union that grants them the same rights as marriage between heterosexual couples. That said, I think religious people of denominations that believe that marriage is a religious union between a man and a woman have to be consistent. They should not regard civil union between heterosexual couple as marriage. If marriage is strictly religious then any union performed outside the church should not be considered a marriage.  

    Regarding bolded, check out libertarian position on state marriage licenses. I believe they were very serious about it.
    Yeah, "separate but equal" doesn't work. I thought we figured that out 55 years ago at the Woolworth's lunch counter.
    How is it even the same? Separate, but equal was a legal doctrine under which the government was allowed to require separation along racial lines. The  separation I am arguing for is the separation of the state and the church. Are you telling me that is not a good idea?

    Edited to clarify. I think as long as there are state-mandated marriage licenses the system should be similar to that of Europe. Everyone has to get a civil ceremony that legalizes union and if people so choose they can also have a religious marriage ceremony in the church.
  • kkitkat79 said:




    kkitkat79 said:



    Yeah, I'm voting nope to the idea that oh I just think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage isn't homophobic. Like, mmmhhhhhmmmmm. Tell me more about how you've spurned the legal benefits of marriage to make that point. Convenient isn't it that conservatives only started arguing this when it seemed like the gays might get to join the party.

    I'll give it a go. I think there is no reason why government should be involved in marriage. Marriage/ union/ partnership/ whatever is a private affair between two or more consenting adults. Government has no business to be meddling in that. However, as long as it does meddle everyone should get the same deal. Explain to me how this is homophobic.  




    You said it better than I did.





    The homophobic part is when you're ambivalent about the gays getting to join in on that whole getting the same deal part. The homophobic part is also pretending in the fairy tale that anyone was arguing seriously against state marriage licenses pre-gay marriage being a thing.
    I can't speak for other posters, but to me being ambivalent towards gay marriage does not mean being ambivalent towards gay couples getting the same deal as heterosexual couples.

    As I understand it, for some people the word marriage has a religious connotation. As such they have to oppose gay marriage. However, they could be perfectly fine with gay union that grants them the same rights as marriage between heterosexual couples. That said, I think religious people of denominations that believe that marriage is a religious union between a man and a woman have to be consistent. They should not regard civil union between heterosexual couple as marriage. If marriage is strictly religious then any union performed outside the church should not be considered a marriage.  

    Regarding bolded, check out libertarian position on state marriage licenses. I believe they were very serious about it.




    Opposing gay marriage but being fine with gay civil unions is homophobic.

    And I'm also not at all okay with religious people deciding that they own the word marriage. Civil marriage is a long standing right. You don't need to be religious to want a marriage.
    kimmiinthemittensnakeylady
  • kkitkat79 said:
    Yeah, I'm voting nope to the idea that oh I just think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage isn't homophobic. Like, mmmhhhhhmmmmm. Tell me more about how you've spurned the legal benefits of marriage to make that point. Convenient isn't it that conservatives only started arguing this when it seemed like the gays might get to join the party.
    I'll give it a go. I think there is no reason why government should be involved in marriage. Marriage/ union/ partnership/ whatever is a private affair between two or more consenting adults. Government has no business to be meddling in that. However, as long as it does meddle everyone should get the same deal. Explain to me how this is homophobic.  

    You said it better than I did.
    The homophobic part is when you're ambivalent about the gays getting to join in on that whole getting the same deal part. The homophobic part is also pretending in the fairy tale that anyone was arguing seriously against state marriage licenses pre-gay marriage being a thing.
    I can't speak for other posters, but to me being ambivalent towards gay marriage does not mean being ambivalent towards gay couples getting the same deal as heterosexual couples.

    As I understand it, for some people the word marriage has a religious connotation. As such they have to oppose gay marriage. However, they could be perfectly fine with gay union that grants them the same rights as marriage between heterosexual couples. That said, I think religious people of denominations that believe that marriage is a religious union between a man and a woman have to be consistent. They should not regard civil union between heterosexual couple as marriage. If marriage is strictly religious then any union performed outside the church should not be considered a marriage.  

    Regarding bolded, check out libertarian position on state marriage licenses. I believe they were very serious about it.
    Opposing gay marriage but being fine with gay civil unions is homophobic. And I'm also not at all okay with religious people deciding that they own the word marriage. Civil marriage is a long standing right. You don't need to be religious to want a marriage.
    Look, people are allowed to be homophobic, racists, whatever. That has nothing to do with their belief regarding justice. It is just to allow gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. And if civil unions grant couples  the same legal rights as marriage does  then justice is done, nothing more is needed. However, as I said before, I think it would be wise  (short of cancelling the state marriage license all together) to have total separation between state and church and have civil unions required for everyone and then whoever wants a church ceremony can find a church to meet their needs.  
  • HeatherKatHeatherKat the Frozen Tundra member
    Ninth Anniversary 500 Love Its 100 Comments Name Dropper
    kkitkat79 said:
    Look, people are allowed to be homophobic, racists, whatever. That has nothing to do with their belief regarding justice. It is just to allow gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. And if civil unions grant couples  the same legal rights as marriage does  then justice is done, nothing more is needed. However, as I said before, I think it would be wise  (short of cancelling the state marriage license all together) to have total separation between state and church and have civil unions required for everyone and then whoever wants a church ceremony can find a church to meet their needs.  
    Isn't that how it already works? I don't have to (and didn't) go to a church to get married. We had a civil ceremony. Are you arguing purely on semantics?
    Amor vincet omnia.... par liones.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker

    image
  • kkitkat79 said:
    Look, people are allowed to be homophobic, racists, whatever. That has nothing to do with their belief regarding justice. It is just to allow gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. And if civil unions grant couples  the same legal rights as marriage does  then justice is done, nothing more is needed. However, as I said before, I think it would be wise  (short of cancelling the state marriage license all together) to have total separation between state and church and have civil unions required for everyone and then whoever wants a church ceremony can find a church to meet their needs.  
    Isn't that how it already works? I don't have to (and didn't) go to a church to get married. We had a civil ceremony. Are you arguing purely on semantics?
    I don't think this is how it works. It is true that you don't have to go to church, but couples that marry at the church don't have to have a civil ceremony. So there is no complete separation between church and state because the church also has legal standing. For separation to be complete religious institutions should not have any legal authority. 

    I do agree with you that this argument over whether it should be called marriage or not is semantic. I think that as long as everyone has identical legal rights it doesn't matter what it's called, marriage, civil union, partnership, whatever. But for some reason it matters to people. I can understand why it might be important to religious people, but for the life of me I don't get the insistence of the non-religious crowd. 

  • We live in a society that many benefits are tied to marriage.   
    kkitkat79 said:
    Look, people are allowed to be homophobic, racists, whatever. That has nothing to do with their belief regarding justice. It is just to allow gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. And if civil unions grant couples  the same legal rights as marriage does  then justice is done, nothing more is needed. However, as I said before, I think it would be wise  (short of cancelling the state marriage license all together) to have total separation between state and church and have civil unions required for everyone and then whoever wants a church ceremony can find a church to meet their needs.  
    Isn't that how it already works? I don't have to (and didn't) go to a church to get married. We had a civil ceremony. Are you arguing purely on semantics?
    I needed my state marriage license for my church marriage to take place. For a true separation of Church and State, the priest wouldn't be able to legally marry me. In the US, I'd actually have issues if I was legally married before I went to be married in my faith.
    kkitkat79Casadena
  • kkitkat79 said:




    kkitkat79 said:


    Look, people are allowed to be homophobic, racists, whatever. That has nothing to do with their belief regarding justice. It is just to allow gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. And if civil unions grant couples  the same legal rights as marriage does  then justice is done, nothing more is needed. However, as I said before, I think it would be wise  (short of cancelling the state marriage license all together) to have total separation between state and church and have civil unions required for everyone and then whoever wants a church ceremony can find a church to meet their needs.  

    Isn't that how it already works? I don't have to (and didn't) go to a church to get married. We had a civil ceremony. Are you arguing purely on semantics?


    I don't think this is how it works. It is true that you don't have to go to church, but couples that marry at the church don't have to have a civil ceremony. So there is no complete separation between church and state because the church also has legal standing. For separation to be complete religious institutions should not have any legal authority. 

    I do agree with you that this argument over whether it should be called marriage or not is semantic. I think that as long as everyone has identical legal rights it doesn't matter what it's called, marriage, civil union, partnership, whatever. But for some reason it matters to people. I can understand why it might be important to religious people, but for the life of me I don't get the insistence of the non-religious crowd. 




    "Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. “It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.” Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.
    It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that civil marriage has long been termed a “civil right.”" Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

    If you can read that and still not "get" why marriage is important to people who aren't religious, you're not trying to understand.
    HeatherKatjustsie[Deleted User]kimmiinthemitten
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards