|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
You know what you're proposing is "Seperate but Equal" right? That worked out so well last time we tried it.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 88
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 88 |
Chick-fil-A "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" drew customers to their local franchises in record numbers in support of the fast food chain yesterday. However, those patrons -- many of whom are likely to defend Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy's proclaimed anti-gay marriage stance -- are overlooking a key fact, according to a new petition. Titled "Chick-fil-A: End the hypocrisy! Stop serving gay chickens," the petition points to what it calls a "harsh fact": instances of homosexual behavior in chickens themselves. "As early as 1764, male chickens have been observed sexually mounting other cocks," Steven Hoffman, the petition's Ohio-based organizer, writes. "How can Chick-fil-A claim to be truly committed to their selective and hateful misreading of the Biblical definition of marriage when the nearly 300 million sandwiches they sell yearly contain chickens, some or all of which might be gay?" The petition, which currently has over 1,500 signatures, concludes, "Tell Chick-fil-A to put their money where their mouth is and only sell animals that are 100 percent heterosexual." And those chickens apparently aren't the only fowl to swing both ways -- as Time magazine reported, more than 100 bird species engage in some sort of homosexual behavior, "ranging from casual sex to child-rearing partnerships."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
Now, you bring the constitution into this discussion. I am not a constitutional scholar, but does the constitution discuss marriage as a "right"?
Somewhat correct and incorrect at the same time. The Constitution defines the power of the government and its relation to the American People. I think marriage would fall under the 1st Amendent as you have said most people place a religious conotation with it.
I do not think you are illogical I think that your thought is. A lot of people have cases of cognitive dissonance, its just important to recognize them. For me I think that liquor, cigars, and the Browns are good for me/won't hurt me.
Quote:
I agree with most of that. We are not Saudi Arabia or Iran. If we were, gays would be killed. I don't want that, neither do you.
Yes but I do not want to take away a person's rights based on a religious belief/text like Iran and Saudi Arabia does, you do.
Quote:
I'm not sure where your reference to slavery in the Bible comes from, but again, I'm not a Biblical scholar.
The regulation of slavery in the Bible, and absence of outright condemnation of it as an institution, was later used to justify slavery by its defenders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery
So in a nutshell people used their religious belief to take away the rigths of people....Sounds eeirely familar.
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,647 Likes: 207
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,647 Likes: 207 |
NRTU
We have had a long and imperfect path with many stumbles along the way.
Our founding fathers perhaps said it best, "in Order to form a more perfect union".
The founding fathers knew what they wrote was not perfect, and it had to be amended 10 times just to get it passed through the States. It included valued slavery at 3/5ths of a regular person.
Yet today we have a lot of people who try to "biblify" the constitution and make it some sort of sacred document that can't be changed, only interpreted. That is pure silliness. The 12 amendment fixed a math issue.
What was needed was a mechanism to establish laws and rights, and that could be changed over time. If you can't understand the second amendment repeal it and replace it with something that is more coherent, or applicable to the current scenario where we no longer have militia.
We have gone through a number of fundamental changes, slavery, women voting, equal rights, and now gay rights, the definition of rights has changed over time and has always been a difficult fight.
People are allowed free speech, the consequences of such free speech should be contemplated before spoken. You may be entitled to voice an opinion, but you can't necessarily make others accept your position.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
That's fine...so WHO then?????...the point is...just because YOU think him to be "backward and misguided"......It doesn't mean he is....GET OVER YOURSELF!!!!!!!
That's like saying I have no right to say that stoning a woman to death for adultery is backwards or misguided, because it's merely my opinion. I mean, who am I to tell some Saudi leader what to believe, right? 
Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone not involved in it. Not one bit. It is misguided and backward to say 'This shouldn't happen, because my faith doesn't condone it'. Our laws aren't based on any one faith.
It is absolutely backwards and misguided to think that one has the right to infringe upon another person's life simply because they don't agree with something.
If gays were allowed to be married tomorrow, it would have absolutely ZERO affect on anyone who didn't agree with gay marriage. None whatsoever. However, if gay marriage were banned tomorrow, there is a whole sect of the population whose lives would be limited and altered.
That's where it's backward and misguided -- to think that because you feel a certain way, the population should act a certain way.
No one is saying 'gays should be allowed to marry, and everyone has to like it'. If your faith thinks it's wrong, you're perfectly OK to think that it's wrong. The backward thinking comes when you want your beliefs to be forced onto others, or that they should live their lives in accordance with your faith.
As for the protest ... I couldn't care less. I actually saw a funny meme the other day that basically said 'Oh, you're going to stop eating at a restaurant because they don't agree with gay marriage? Are you going to stop using gasoline because the leaders of OPEC put homosexuals to death?'
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223 |
Quote:
Quote:
If someone is gay, whatever. That's their thing. But to boycott this place because the owner has firm religious beliefs that is against gay marriage is absurd. It's hypocritical when you think about it. The fact that some of these groups get their panties in a wad, then have to make it some sort of demonstration because someone doesn't agree with them is what irks me about them.
As long as you have that same take on anyone owning a business and publicly stating that their religion fuels their need to make sure that those beliefs prohibit a segment of society from attaining something it is seeking. If his religion was against white, heterosexual people marrying, my guess is that you might feel differently about frequenting the restaurant.  Hypocrisy is working strongly on both sides of this matter.
No. I really wouldn't.
Unless he discriminated against them. If the guy refused to hire, serve and otherwise trashed said group, that's a different story.
![[Linked Image from pic18.picturetrail.com]](http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL905/3216203/6567769/349897772.jpg) "The Browns' defense is kicking mucho dupa."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,373 Likes: 880
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,373 Likes: 880 |
Listen, I just want to make sure we have our facts straight here, and you don't. How in the hell do you get marriage out of the first amendment? I can't seem to find marriage anywhere in the Constitution. Your view of marriage falling under the first amendment is the first time I've seen thatargument made. The constitution is silent on marriage. Therefore, it falls under the 10th Amendment where states decide which is what we have going on in the country for years now. If Anything at all, the First Amendment says you have the freedom to join a religion that believes gay marriage is acceptable. But hell, you could also be part of a religion that believes you have to yell "Wally Wally woo" and dive behind a couch every time somebody sneezes. Nothing to do with a right to marriage.
Personally, I don't give a rat's behind if we have gay marriage in this country or not because it doesn't affect me one way or the other. What I think Arch is saying, and Arch, correct me if I'm wrong, is that he, through his religion views the very meaning of the word "marriage" to be a union between a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with whether two people of the same sex should be able to live together or form a union under the law, just literally what the word "marriage" signifies.
A parallel can be drawn here to what the definition of "human being" is when it comes to abortion.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246 Likes: 1
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246 Likes: 1 |
No.
I don't see it that way at all. Truthfully I don't think marriage is a right, certainly not one in the Constitution and as such is reserved for the states to figure out.
What I am thinking, as far as civil unions isn't something that would/could be applied to homosexuals only but to the society as a whole outside of marriage. More like a business venture really. It stops short of marriage due to the combining of finances and if there is a divorce, who gets half of whose money, the house, the kids and the dog
So I don't see the separate but equal claim you make and honestly I am a bit perturbed that you would use that horrible horrible God awful time in America and equate it with marriage. Separate bathrooms, fountains, schools . . . Jim Crow . . .
I suppose I should have left out the "pacify the religious" part as misguided writing, but you'll have to articulate a bit more as to why the two concepts are analogous. The thought in my head is of too levels of an arrangement. A minor league and a major league if you will.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
Listen, I just want to make sure we have our facts straight here, and you don't. How in the hell do you get marriage out of the first amendment? I can't seem to find marriage anywhere in the Constitution.
Just because the Constitution doesn't mention marriage by name doesn't mean that its not in there. For example the Commerce Clause just says that the Fed. Government has the right to regulate trade between the states, that's a very deep rabbit hole but doesn't make mention of highways, the internet, aircraft..etc which all have generally been found to fit under the Commerce Clause.
As for why I think marriage fits under the 1st Amendment, as we know the 1st amendment says that freedom of religion (paraphrasing). Generally that means you can practice your religion as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Part of practicing a religion are the rituals and ceremonials of that religion. My argument is that marriage is integral part of a religion, for example Christianity, and getting married is a ritual/ceremonial of that religion. The argument would be won or loss on if marriage is indeed part of a religion.
Now I think that's an easy jump to make because most people don't want to allow gay couple marriage because their "religion" says its between a man and a woman. So either it is an integral part of a religion or its not and most people who oppose would lose their standing to oppose it unless of course they're just a bigot.
Quote:
What I am thinking, as far as civil unions isn't something that would/could be applied to homosexuals only but to the society as a whole outside of marriage. More like a business venture really. It stops short of marriage due to the combining of finances and if there is a divorce, who gets half of whose money, the house, the kids and the dog
Straight people Marriage
Gay Couple Union (Sure straight people could do this too but it doesn't change the fact that gay couples could never get married)
Separate but pretty much equal right? I mean is that hard to see. One group could do one thing, another group do another thing yet they would be pretty much equal in your eyes. Separate but equal.
The reasons civil rights is an easy analogy because its comes down to 1 group with rights stopping another group from having those same rights based on religion or bigotry or whatever. Its just history repeating itself.
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,373 Likes: 880
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,373 Likes: 880 |
I really don't know how else to put it other than this: there is no Constitutional right to gay marriage. It falls to the states. Why do you think each state has been deciding this issue on its own? Even the ICC you mention has limitations. For instance the justification of the health care law failed on the ICC grounds. If you're trying to draw a rational relation between a Constitutional right to gay marriage and the First Amendment, you make Sotomayor look like Scalia.
Of course you have the right to be a member of a religion that believes in gay marriage. It's separate though and the religious portion of the marriage is not recognized by the state. I was married in the Church, but I also had to get married in the state of Florida, which through full faith and credit is recognized in Ohio.
Marriage is a state issue.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
So, if marriage possesses this dualistic nature, would anyone object to making a separation? I'm fairly certain that 100 percent of the people who believe marriage should be exclusively heterosexual believe this for religious reasons. And I'm also fairly certain that the majority of these people also believe in reducing the role government plays in their personal lives. Therefore, why not make marriage, as it is traditionally defined, a private matter? Leave it up to the churches to decide who they will marry, and if they choose to discriminate against homosexuals, so be it. The only thing we should be concerned about in the public sphere is the legal status of two individuals who want to make a lifetime committment to each other. By the standards of the heterosexual marriage supporters, it's not a marriage at all because it is not sanctioned by God, which is the key difference between a private marriage and a public one under my recommendation. Essentially, there would be only one true type of marriage because God is not involved in granting state sanctioned rights and benefits. And after all, isn't defending this private definition of marriage what is really important to you anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,130 Likes: 1050
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,130 Likes: 1050 |
That's where Ytown's civil union idea comes into play. Let the government recognize civil unions, and the individuals can recognize their partnership according to their religious beliefs. This way, no one's forcing their beliefs upon others. If there's an argument within a particular denomination, let that church sort it out.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,373 Likes: 880
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,373 Likes: 880 |
I'd be on board with that.
Edit - I think the major problem is that both sides simply just don't want to lose their fight on the word "marriage." this goes all the way up through Congress.
Last edited by dawglover05; 08/04/12 10:58 PM.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
That's where Ytown's civil union idea comes into play. Let the government recognize civil unions, and the individuals can recognize their partnership according to their religious beliefs. This way, no one's forcing their beliefs upon others. If there's an argument within a particular denomination, let that church sort it out.
Isn't forcing someone to get a "civil union" as opposed to being allowed to be "married" pushing a different belief on them?
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,130 Likes: 1050
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,130 Likes: 1050 |
Quote:
Quote:
That's where Ytown's civil union idea comes into play. Let the government recognize civil unions, and the individuals can recognize their partnership according to their religious beliefs. This way, no one's forcing their beliefs upon others. If there's an argument within a particular denomination, let that church sort it out.
Isn't forcing someone to get a "civil union" as opposed to being allowed to be "married" pushing a different belief on them?
It's not a belief, it's a parnership recognized by the government.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
j/c
This thread is no longer even pretending to discuss Chick-Fil-A. There's been 2 posts about Chick-Fil-A in the last 3 pages and one of them is a comedy video. I think it's time to stop beating this dead horse and just lock the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,373 Likes: 880
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,373 Likes: 880 |
How are you forcing anything? I'm just trying to understand your point here.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,130 Likes: 1050
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,130 Likes: 1050 |
 If you're going to lock threads for straying from the topic, there would be no open threads here.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
How are you forcing anything? I'm just trying to understand your point here.
If a gay couple is in the belief that they should be able to get married, and laws state they can, then someone saying they can't is going against THEIR beleifs.
But their beliefs don't matter, right?
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
I'd be on board with that.
Edit - I think the major problem is that both sides simply just don't want to lose their fight on the word "marriage." this goes all the way up through Congress.
I'm fairly certain that the major problem is that there are 1,138 federal laws that refer strictly to those people who are "married", which excludes those in domestic partnerships and other such civil unions.
Do we then also require every state to amend every law on its books which refers to marriage to reflect the change? It's not quite as easy as simply doing a "find - replace" exchanging one term for the other.
Last edited by Adam_P; 08/05/12 12:10 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,373 Likes: 880
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,373 Likes: 880 |
I'm still vague on what your point is or anything I implied or stated where their beliefs don't matter.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,373 Likes: 880
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,373 Likes: 880 |
I'm fairly certain those types of problems have been confronted before. If that's the only reason something wouldn't go through, then far more is wrong than we thought.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Quote:
Isn't forcing someone to get a "civil union" as opposed to being allowed to be "married" pushing a different belief on them?
I think you're missing the point. The state has no right to marry people in the traditional sense of that word. Furthermore, once the separation is made, it is up to the couple to go to the state to apply for their civil union. Nothing is being forced on anyone. If you want to get married, go to the church. If you want a civil union, go to the state. If you want both, go to both.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Quote:
Isn't forcing someone to get a "civil union" as opposed to being allowed to be "married" pushing a different belief on them?
I think you're missing the point. The state has no right to marry people in the traditional sense of that word. Furthermore, once the separation is made, it is up to the couple to go to the state to apply for their civil union. Nothing is being forced on anyone. If you want to get married, go to the church. If you want a civil union, go to the state. If you want both, go to both.
Ok. That's a good explanation.
It's just my opinion that I think it's stupid that some people don't think other people should be allowed to get "married"
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/chick-fil-a-gay-marriage-chicago/2012/07/26/id/446713ACLU Backs Chick-fil-A Against Rahm Emanuel's Threatened Ban Chicago and Boston might want to keep Chick-fil-A out of their cities but that doesn’t mean they have the right to do so, according to the ACLU. Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy’s recent comments supporting the “biblical definition” of marriage as between a man and a woman has led to calls by gay rights advocates to boycott the chain. The mayors of Boston and Chicago have recently promised to stop further expansion of the restaurants in their cities. Emanuel weighed in after Chicago Alderman Proco Joe Moreno said he intends to block the chain from opening its second Chicago location because of Cathy’s remarks. Legal experts said the cities’ push to stop Chick-fil-A doesn’t stand a chance because barring Chick-fil-A over the personal views of its owner is an “open and shut” discrimination case, Fox News reported. “The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, told Fox News. “When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination.” The ACLU “strongly supports” same-sex marriage, Schwartz told Fox, but said that if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage. “But we also support the First Amendment,” he said. “We don’ think the government should exclude Chick-fil-A because of the anti-LGBT message. We believe this is clear cut.” Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, told Fox News barring the restaurant raises “serious” constitutional concerns. “It’s also a very slippery slope,” Turley told Fox News. “If a City Council started to punish companies because of the viewpoints of their chief operating officers, that would become a very long list of banned companies.” Wilson Huhn, a professor and associate director of the Constitutional Law Center at The University of Akron School of Law, told Fox News that denying the restaurant the right to locate in Chicago “absolutely” violates the First Amendment. “It would be an open and shut case,” Huhn told Fox News. “You can’t do that. They cannot be denied a zoning permit based upon the viewpoint of their CEO.” Cathy's position of supporting the biblical definition of marriage is not out of the mainstream as polls show Americans approve of gay marriage by 50-48 percent, according to Fox News. Meantime, the Rev. Billy Graham has thrown his support behind the embattled Cathy and announced plans to stop by the fast food restaurant next Wednesday as part of Mike Huckabee’s “Eat Mor Chikin” promotion. ---------------- Liberal Chicago politics at its best. The party of tolerance is nothing of the sort when it comes to them having to be tolerant of an opposing belief. The ACLU gets this one right.
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Just a question to anybody... what if somebody doesn't WANT to get married but wants to live with their partner (same sex or not) and enjoy all of the benefits of marriage? Should that be mandated?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
what, should marriage be mandated?
I don't think marriage should be mandated.
There are several companies (including mine, actually) that offer domestic partner benefits. They are not mandated. They are in place to provide equal benefits to employees in committed same-sex relationships, but apply to all employees in committed relationships (again, in order to provide equal benefits.)
I'm really not sure how I feel about that. To me, it's kind of hard to justify why the partner should get a mandated benefit from the spouse's work unless they have some reason to not be able to provide their own insurance (taking care of children, disability, etc where they are a legitimate dependent and not just lazy,) especially if they are not fully committed in marriage. I think it would be a lot easier to just say "gay people can get married" and not offer the "domestic partner" benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,161 Likes: 844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,161 Likes: 844 |
Quote:
Just a question to anybody... what if somebody doesn't WANT to get married but wants to live with their partner (same sex or not) and enjoy all of the benefits of marriage? Should that be mandated?
No, because that is not married, that is not a union.
Of course, you now have to bring in all of the "Common Law Marriage" arguments... but, it'd be best to let that be handled by the States, or even municipalities.
In short, though, I'd say that if it is a legally recognized union, then benefits should apply.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
what, should marriage be mandated?
I don't think marriage should be mandated.
There are several companies (including mine, actually) that offer domestic partner benefits. They are not mandated. They are in place to provide equal benefits to employees in committed same-sex relationships, but apply to all employees in committed relationships (again, in order to provide equal benefits.)
I'm really not sure how I feel about that. To me, it's kind of hard to justify why the partner should get a mandated benefit from the spouse's work unless they have some reason to not be able to provide their own insurance (taking care of children, disability, etc where they are a legitimate dependent and not just lazy,) especially if they are not fully committed in marriage. I think it would be a lot easier to just say "gay people can get married" and not offer the "domestic partner" benefits.
In states like mine, taking that offer of domestic partner benefits could be seen as enough to prove, along with co-habitating, a common-law marriage.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
I think that makes the erroneous assumption that significant others who are married to each other are more committed to each other than those who are not, simply by virtue of being married. Yet, every day married people cheat on their spouses, divorce, or marry solely for personal gain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 Likes: 31
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Just a question to anybody... what if somebody doesn't WANT to get married but wants to live with their partner (same sex or not) and enjoy all of the benefits of marriage? Should that be mandated?
No. Marry or don't.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 Likes: 26
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 Likes: 26 |
Quote:
I think that makes the erroneous assumption that significant others who are married to each other are more committed to each other than those who are not, simply by virtue of being married. Yet, every day married people cheat on their spouses, divorce, or marry solely for personal gain.
I wish my girlfriend would understand that.  I've been married once, don't plan on doing it again as I find it pointless based on your exact statement that it is an erroneous assumption that there is more commitment if you are married.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
Quote:
Just a question to anybody... what if somebody doesn't WANT to get married but wants to live with their partner (same sex or not) and enjoy all of the benefits of marriage? Should that be mandated?
I think you run into an issue of people "pretending" to be a couple for the sake of one's insurance, even if they are just roommates. Ad in some cases claiming to live in the same household but in truth don't. That's harder to prove than simply asking for your marriage or civil union certificate.
We have enough people defrauding companies and costing everyone else more, we can't make it easier to commit fraud.
besides it is too easy to claim a "partner" then a few week slater when things don't work out declaim them. The paperwork and chance for people falling through the cracks is too high.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 Likes: 31
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think that makes the erroneous assumption that significant others who are married to each other are more committed to each other than those who are not, simply by virtue of being married. Yet, every day married people cheat on their spouses, divorce, or marry solely for personal gain.
I wish my girlfriend would understand that. I've been married once, don't plan on doing it again as I find it pointless based on your exact statement that it is an erroneous assumption that there is more commitment if you are married.
Nah, just more LEGAL benefits...and consequences.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 Likes: 26
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 Likes: 26 |
It's the consequences that I don't want to deal with again.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,161 Likes: 844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,161 Likes: 844 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think that makes the erroneous assumption that significant others who are married to each other are more committed to each other than those who are not, simply by virtue of being married. Yet, every day married people cheat on their spouses, divorce, or marry solely for personal gain.
I wish my girlfriend would understand that. I've been married once, don't plan on doing it again as I find it pointless based on your exact statement that it is an erroneous assumption that there is more commitment if you are married.
While true that it doesn't mean you are more committed, it is because humans are involved, not because the concept of marriage is faulty or pointless. It is a public statement of commitment. A declaration and promise of commitment to each other in front of all you know. Publicly and openly giving yourself over to the other.
If it was truly pointless and had no meaning, the concept of marriage would have died out long ago..... not to mention, then what the heck is this whole discussion be about? It certainly isn't religion... religion has jack-diddly to do with marriage except that most cultures tend to want their marriages blessed by their respective religion.
Yes, people can still love each other without doing it, just as much as those who do it.... but that isn't what it is about.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
I agree that marriage isn't pointless. I hope my previous comment wasn't taken to mean that I thought otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 Likes: 26
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 Likes: 26 |
Quote:
I agree that marriage isn't pointless. I hope my previous comment wasn't taken to mean that I thought otherwise.
Call me bitter I guess  I did not take it that way and didn't mean to put words into your mouth. It is my opinion that I have after trying it once for 10 years, showing my public commitment in front of everyone, and then having the love of my life throw it all away. There are a few on here that know my story, and lets just say it was not the best time in my life. For some it is probably the greatest thing ever and I do not want to say that it is pointless for everyone, just me at this point.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Quote:
It's just my opinion that I think it's stupid that some people don't think other people should be allowed to get "married"
Well, on that point we agree. And I think it eventually will cease to be a relevant issue once the older generation of Christians die off. Only time will solve this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,847 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,847 Likes: 159 |
Quote:
Quote:
I agree that marriage isn't pointless. I hope my previous comment wasn't taken to mean that I thought otherwise.
Call me bitter I guess I did not take it that way and didn't mean to put words into your mouth. It is my opinion that I have after trying it once for 10 years, showing my public commitment in front of everyone, and then having the love of my life throw it all away. There are a few on here that know my story, and lets just say it was not the best time in my life. For some it is probably the greatest thing ever and I do not want to say that it is pointless for everyone, just me at this point.
I've had both the misfortune and good fortune to experience both a bad and a good marriage.
I can assure you, the good marriage is way better.. thank god I only wasted 4 years on the bad one.. 26 so far on the good one.
I really don't think gender matters.. in my case it's man/woman. Our preference.
I have no issue, nor have I ever had issues with same sex marriage. I really wish religion and government would get out of the way of this issue. I don't think it should even enter into the realm of politics.. But apparently, the use, or should I say, the misuse of this issue gets people elected....
But that's just me. I want everyone to have what I have. I want them to have a life partner (call it whatever you want to call it, but mine is my wife) I want them to have someone that will be there for them no matter what the situation is, in good times and it bad, in good health or in bad, for better or for worse.....
I'm just not convinced that it should matter what equipment they are packing..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Chick-fil-a
|
|
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
