|
Replies: 31
| visibility 1
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
was your reception nice?***
Nov 19, 2014, 9:43 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
It was fabulous.
Nov 19, 2014, 10:46 AM
|
|
nm
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8243]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7408
Joined: 2/20/04
|
I really wish all people didn't care as much
Nov 19, 2014, 9:43 AM
|
|
as I don't care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I'm like that on 99% of social issues
Nov 19, 2014, 9:51 AM
|
|
probably the only social issue that gets me is late term abortions. Anything, i could give a flip about. Just dont tax me to death and limit regulations on businesses and I'm good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
The problem is that people are viewing late term abortion
Nov 19, 2014, 10:02 AM
|
|
As a "social issue" and not the gruesome slaughter of a helpless child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47795]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44515
Joined: 9/5/02
|
yep. agree with you here too!
Nov 19, 2014, 10:43 AM
|
|
and this is where some "libertarians" get off track.
I think there may well be a "debate" about when life begins but I don't see argument that life hasn't begun after viability. There's nothing "social" about killing a 7mo fetus.
we're on a roll today Bravo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79400]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63266
Joined: 10/30/05
|
Except Sunday beer sales, I was adamant about that one
Nov 19, 2014, 10:06 AM
[ in reply to I'm like that on 99% of social issues ] |
|
Legalizing pot is another big one for me, other than that I'm with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
those are social issues, too
Nov 19, 2014, 11:10 AM
[ in reply to I'm like that on 99% of social issues ] |
|
And, of course, "not caring about social issues" just ends up meaning that anybody who disagrees with activists should just shut up and stay out of the political process. So while I think there's an artificial divide between things we call "social issues" like abortion and same-sex marriage and other "fiscal issues," the effect of people "not caring about social issues" in the case of same-sex marriage in Charleston would be that the citizens of Charleston have no say in what their government will recognize as marriage. Instead, a judge will take that decision out of the political process.
I get why some people wouldn't think same- sex marriage is a big deal relative to other political issues. After all, it's just one battle in the ongoing effort by some to remake marriage, and straight people have done plenty to chip away at the conjugal view of marriage already. However, marriage should, in general, be a bigger political issue. After all, we know that whether the parents of children are married is one of the leading indicators of the success of those children. Why we'd want to recognize a new kind of marriage that's only about romance and doesn't include the encouragement of the social goods inherent in marriage, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [80978]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56059
Joined: 9/13/04
|
So by that you mean that gay people shouldn't be raising
Nov 19, 2014, 5:22 PM
|
|
children?
Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47795]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44515
Joined: 9/5/02
|
I'm glad the discrimination is over
Nov 19, 2014, 9:44 AM
|
|
I remain repulsed by the idea that people have to apply to the Government to get married.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I think the government should get out of the marriage
Nov 19, 2014, 10:03 AM
|
|
business. Whether or not you have whatever ceremony you want to have to vow whatever you want to each other should not affect how the government sees you. No tax breaks, no nothin'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47795]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44515
Joined: 9/5/02
|
thats my position exactly.***
Nov 19, 2014, 10:10 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
That's not really practicable
Nov 19, 2014, 11:24 AM
[ in reply to I think the government should get out of the marriage ] |
|
I think that's just an out people who oppose same-sex marriage give themselves when they feel they're losing the political debate, or when they want to reduce politics to matters clearer than marriage. Government recognition of marriage performed the important purpose of encouraging men and women in sexual relationships to commit for life in order to better raise children, and the so-called "benefits" of marriage accrued to it in order to shore up that social good. Even a wrong definition of marriage is still going to encourage some real marriage.
More likely, and much more practicable, is the church getting out of the government recognized marriage business. If the government is no longer going to recognize real marriages, and is instead going to institute the same-sex model of marriage in law, then maybe churches that don't recognize that model of marriage should stop certifying that people are married in that way. I'm not sure I agree with that either, but it's better than the government getting out of the marriage business. Here are a few comments on this idea: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/04/the-church-and-civil-marriage
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33600
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: That's not really practicable
Nov 19, 2014, 12:07 PM
|
|
Your position on marriage being about the children is clear, but how do you address an issue like this:
I know an unmarried couple and, as such, they cannot share their medical benefits. They're never going to have children. One of them has no insurance through their job. They would benefit from getting married just for the health insurance.
Of course, if they were a gay couple in the wrong state, they're just out of luck. But they're not. But they still seem to be in an unfair position.
I wonder how this picture would change if government were out of the marriage business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: That's not really practicable
Nov 19, 2014, 12:18 PM
|
|
My position on marriage isn't really "about the children," it's that procreation ought to be inherent in marriage. It's not something you can just extract from marriage and still have a marriage.
I believe the couple you're talking about could seek a civil union, but I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to extend the "benefit" to which you're referring to a couple that isn't permanent and that isn't going to have children. This is a good example of a "benefit" that's actually just a way of accounting for what happens in a marriage: a couple gets married and, especially in the past, the wife may not have a job; the wife may get pregnant and then stay home to take care of the kids. So the extension of health insurance to a spouse/ partner was intended to account for marital norms, not just to be a "benefit" offered to entice people into the marital relationship.
This is part of the reason why I don't think it makes sense to call the situation of every relationship that isn't marriage "unfair" because marriage is treated differently than other relationships.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33600
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: That's not really practicable
Nov 19, 2014, 12:45 PM
|
|
My position on marriage isn't really "about the children," it's that procreation ought to be inherent in marriage. It's not something you can just extract from marriage and still have a marriage.
I'm going to suggest that "procreation" equals having "children" and ("inherent" + "can't just extract") equals "all about." Thus, you think it's all about children.
I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to extend the "benefit" to which you're referring to a couple that isn't permanent and that isn't going to have children.
By that logic, why extend health benefits to any couple with two working partners? Just extend them to the kids. (It's all about the kids... and only those parents who are not working because kids.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: That's not really practicable
Nov 19, 2014, 1:00 PM
|
|
"I'm going to suggest that "procreation" equals having "children" and ("inherent" + "can't just extract") equals "all about." Thus, you think it's all about children."
There's an important difference between saying something's "all about" a particular thing and saying that there's something inherent in something. For example, we could say that paws are an inherent part of a dog, but that doesn't mean that the paws are the only things that make dogs, dogs. However, maybe it's more accurate to say that, in the case of same-sex marriage, a large part of the controversy is that the new conception of marriage that makes sense for same sex couples does try to extract procreation from marriage. Procreation isn't inherent in the model of marriage proposed by SSM advocates, and that's why it's an important topic in the argument, not because proponents of traditional marriage think marriage is all about procreation.
"By that logic, why extend health benefits to any couple with two working partners? Just extend them to the kids. (It's all about the kids... and only those parents who are not working because kids.)"
But it isn't all about the kids, it's also about two parents, one of which might have to take time out of work to birth and take care of the kids full time. It simply makes good sense for the state to allow a husband to include his wife on his health insurance if it wants to encourage the good that comes from marriage. But, on a model of marriage that's only about romance, or that isn't (supposed to be) permanent, this makes less sense. So, again, this is why the law "discriminates" between married couples (as traditionally understood) and other relationships when it comes to "benefits" such as having your spouse on your insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33600
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: That's not really practicable
Nov 19, 2014, 1:47 PM
|
|
For example, we could say that paws are an inherent part of a dog, but that doesn't mean that the paws are the only things that make dogs, dogs.
You're backpedaling. What you said before was that procreation is "not something you can just extract from marriage and still have a marriage." But there are dogs with missing legs. There are dogs with no paws. But you still have a dog.
Procreation isn't inherent in the model of marriage proposed by SSM advocates
Sure, but SSM advocates do care about children, via adoption or IVF. And when you think about it, raising a child is far more important to society than creating a child, so marriage is possibly more about child-rearing than procreation.
But, on a model of marriage that's only about romance, or that isn't (supposed to be) permanent, this makes less sense.
Less sense or no sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: That's not really practicable
Nov 19, 2014, 3:39 PM
|
|
"You're backpedaling. What you said before was that procreation is "not something you can just extract from marriage and still have a marriage." But there are dogs with missing legs. There are dogs with no paws. But you still have a dog."
No, this is pretty much the opposite of what I was saying, so I must not have made it very clear. To know what something is, you don't have to whittle it down to an essence, without which it wouldn't exist. Instead, we identify a number of features of a paradigm of a thing that distinguish it from something else. We might say, then, that a dog is the kind of thing that is a mammal with four paws and large canine teeth, even though there are some dogs with only three paws and which are missing their canine teeth. We're not talking about statistics, we're talking about the sort of thing a dog is. A dog incapable of being the things inherent to being a dog would be something else entirely.
"Sure, but SSM advocates do care about children, via adoption or IVF. And when you think about it, raising a child is far more important to society than creating a child, so marriage is possibly more about child-rearing than procreation."
Again, the claim isn't that marriage is only about procreation or raising children. It is about both of those things, but not only those things. However, only the traditional model of marriage includes all of these things because it arose by tradition, in response to the procreation that happens when men and women have sex. So, yes, marriage is obviously "more" about child- rearing than it is about encouraging procreation, because procreation's going to happen anyway (although, if you ask western Europeans or the Japanese about the importance of procreation for the continuance of their societies, they might have different priorities), while marriage institutes the norm of procreation within a family intended to raise the children produced.
In the case of same sex couples who either adopt or who have children produced for them, there are other issues involved. First of all, there are ethical issues involved in surrogacy (for both same sex and opposite sex couples) that don't arise through natural procreation. Second, those ethical issues arise because, when conceived of as politically "unequal" rather than merely naturally unequal, the situation of the homosexual couple starts to look like one where they're claiming they have a right to children. The homosexual couple is not the kind of couple that can naturally procreate, so they are in a state of inequality with heterosexual couples. Because simply pointing out the inequality of kind is politically beyond the pale, we instead look to redress the inequality through political rights. But can anyone really have a "right" to get a child? Isn't there something wrong when children are no longer gifts, and instead become viewed as products?
"Less sense or no sense?"
It might make sense according to some other, unrelated, logic, which is why I said it made "less sense." But that only puts into relief the fact that we're not just talking about expanding a discriminatory defition of marriage to include same sex couples, we're talking about an entirely new conception of marriage that doesn't actually fit well into the legal framework that's grown up around marriage. This is why the claim that marriage receives unfair benefits in light of the existence of other kinds of relationships that cannot receive those benefits (or, why other relationships that aren't marriages ought to be called marriages because they cannot receive the "benefits" of marriage) is untrue. We're not talking about irrational discrimination here, we're talking about the necessary discrimination between two things of different kinds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
What is necessary about the discrimination?
Nov 19, 2014, 5:19 PM
|
|
"the claim isn't that marriage is only about procreation or raising children. It is about both of those things, but not only those things."
Agreed. As long as it's understood that this aren't clauses in a contract or guarantees necessary to get married. This still leaves the door open for same-sex marriage to co-exist with "traditional" marriage.
"However, only the traditional model of marriage includes all of these things because it arose by tradition, in response to the procreation that happens when men and women have sex."
This insinuates that traditional marriage is static and not fluid in its definitional coverage. Again, traditional marriage is NOT defined by procreation. It is not a necessary component, but is a common characteristic.
"...marriage is obviously "more" about child- rearing than it is about encouraging procreation."
Yes. Good. Let's stop here.
...Or not.
"because procreation's going to happen anyway"
Do you mean as a universal truth? That procreation happens between man/woman whether inside or outside of marriage? In form of a naturalistic argument, I agree. In terms of a debate about marriage? Not seeing the argument.
"while marriage institutes the norm of procreation within a family intended to raise the children produced."
Wouldn't the argument here be that marriage is meant as encouragement for the parents to stay together to raise the child? Again, marriage is acting as a child-rearing proactive measure? It gives no care to how the child came to be?
"In the case of same sex couples who either adopt or who have children produced for them, there are other issues involved. First of all, there are ethical issues involved in surrogacy that don't arise through natural procreation."
Agreed. Different paths to reach a similar destination often have their own unique landscapes to traverse. Pointing this out is immaterial to the same-sex marriage question.
"Those ethical issues arise because, when conceived of as politically "unequal" rather than merely naturally unequal, the situation of the homosexual couple starts to look like one where they're claiming they have a right to children"
No more so than a infertile hetero couple claiming a "right" to a child or to parents in a divorce claiming a "right" to custody.
"The homosexual couple is not the kind of couple that can naturally procreate, so they are in a state of inequality with heterosexual couples."
Again no more so than an infertile hetero couple which often results in a similar end situation. Two parents adopting a child (or surrogate).
"But can anyone really have a "right" to get a child? Isn't there something wrong when children are no longer gifts, and instead become viewed as products?"
Such a cynical view of adoption and surrogacy. Just. Wow.
"We're not just talking about expanding a discriminatory definition of marriage to include same sex couples, we're talking about an entirely new conception of marriage that doesn't actually fit well into the legal framework that's grown up around marriage"
Wha? This isn't supported by anything you've said. Needs clarification.
"We're talking about the necessary discrimination between two things of different kinds."
We are? The result as seen by the state is the same. Two consenting adults joined together with the possibility of raising a child(s) which is best for the state. What is necessary about this discrimination?
Those against same-sex marriage argue that it is a broadening of the definition of marriage, but isn't the opposite just as true? That many are arguing a much more narrow definition of marriage? Shouldn't the argument be what is in the state's best interest? Which as you've agreed here, is mainly in supporting child-rearing through marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47795]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44515
Joined: 9/5/02
|
"just an out people who oppose same-sex marriage" - uh, no
Nov 19, 2014, 2:49 PM
[ in reply to That's not really practicable ] |
|
For the record, I support same sex marriage. How consenting adults choose to organize their lives should be between them and of no concern to the state. Similarly, I believe churches should be allowed to marry who they please. If a church wants to recognize and preside over same sex marriages, fine. if not, fine. I'm proud that my church in Charlotte recently became the first UMC church in Charlotte to become a reconciling church and I long for the day that UMC clergy can preside over same sex marriage ceremonies, not merely participate in them.
I'm a heterosexual man married to a beautiful woman but frankly I was offended that I had to get a license from the state of SC in order to get married.
Its shocking to me that so many so-called "conservatives" take a position that the government should be dictating peoples' lives.
Historically, governments didnt even sanction marriage - its a creature of modern advent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [80978]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56059
Joined: 9/13/04
|
It's all about money, taxation, and control.***
Nov 19, 2014, 5:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60205]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42549
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3509]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4242
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: First gay couple exchanges vows in Charleston County
Nov 19, 2014, 10:33 AM
|
|
God for them and about time IMO. Not my cup of tea but also none of my business (or anyone else's). The fact that anyone objects to two consenting adults getting hitched just boggles my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2618]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1869
Joined: 8/13/02
|
Re: First gay couple exchanges vows in Charleston County
Nov 19, 2014, 11:54 AM
|
|
Good for them. They look happy in the video I saw on-line. I would have been nice if the girl with the hat had dressed up a little. For Christ-sakes your getting married. lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11161]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10900
Joined: 9/17/07
|
Good for them, good luck feeling normal.
Nov 19, 2014, 2:40 PM
|
|
Hope it works out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12533]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 12246
Joined: 11/21/11
|
They are not doing it to "feel normal". There are many
Nov 19, 2014, 8:50 PM
|
|
day-to-day life affecting legal ramifications, that come with in a marriage recognized by the state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [512]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 891
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: First gay couple exchanges vows in Charleston County
Nov 19, 2014, 4:23 PM
|
|
Good for them but I see our a-hole AG decided to waste more money on another appeal to the SC even though they told states to f-off already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3509]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4242
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: First gay couple exchanges vows in Charleston County
Nov 19, 2014, 8:23 PM
|
|
Yep...huge waste of tax dollars. In a similar story I read, the AG was also fighting to reset the current year in SC to 1714 from the current 1814.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12533]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 12246
Joined: 11/21/11
|
South Carolina's leaders have always firmly planted
Nov 19, 2014, 8:48 PM
[ in reply to Re: First gay couple exchanges vows in Charleston County ] |
|
themselves in the record books as being on the wrong side of history. They were still fighting integration 16 years after Brown vs Board of Education. Why would our elected officials change now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12533]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 12246
Joined: 11/21/11
|
Not to mention the brilliant decision of secceeding from
Nov 19, 2014, 8:53 PM
|
|
the union in defense of slavery. Good God Almighty help us Lord!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 31
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
