Jump to content

Conservative talk show host Michael Berry can't even drive straight, hits car ou


Double L

Recommended Posts

Anything less than granting equal rights to homosexuals is not "middle ground." There can be no compromise between injustice and justice. It's wrong that a gay person cannot marry the person they love. Wrong.

That issue has nothing to do with gay rights.

Justice for one person is injustice for another. Just becuase you believe it's justice for gays to marry or for people to commit abortion doesn't mean it's the right way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Justice for one person is injustice for another. Just becuase you believe it's justice for gays to marry or for people to commit abortion doesn't mean it's the right way.

The only people who seem to think that are religious fundamentalists and closeted right-wingers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice for one person is injustice for another. Just becuase you believe it's justice for gays to marry or for people to commit abortion doesn't mean it's the right way.

I haven't stated a position on abortion, and of course it's just to extend the right of marriage to all people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only people who seem to think that are religious fundamentalists and closeted right-wingers.

Personally, I am a social liberal, but a very fiscal conservative....I have no problem whatsoever with gay people wanting equal rights, and having them. However, I do understand the argument made by the "religious right" that gay people should not be allowed to marry....My understanding of the religious objection to gay people marrying is that marriage is considered an extension of the church - that is, that without the church there would be no such thing as marriage. Just two people who were in a monogamous relationship who file a joint tax return.

If gay people want equal rights that allows them the same treatment in the eyes of the government and work force to file tax returns together, get health insurance, make medical decisions, etc - I, and I believe many Americans have no objection to that.

However if gay people want to force a church or other religious institution to treat them the same as heterosexuals then I do object to that. I do not think anyone's beliefs should be forced onto another. If the catholic church wants to say that they refuse to marry gay people, they have that right....gay people are welcome to "marry" somewhere else. A church should not be forced to accept another's belief system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I am a social liberal, but a very fiscal conservative....I have no problem whatsoever with gay people wanting equal rights, and having them. However, I do understand the argument made by the "religious right" that gay people should not be allowed to marry....My understanding of the religious objection to gay people marrying is that marriage is considered an extension of the church - that is, that without the church there would be no such thing as marriage. Just two people who were in a monogamous relationship who file a joint tax return.

If gay people want equal rights that allows them the same treatment in the eyes of the government and work force to file tax returns together, get health insurance, make medical decisions, etc - I, and I believe many Americans have no objection to that.

However if gay people want to force a church or other religious institution to treat them the same as heterosexuals then I do object to that. I do not think anyone's beliefs should be forced onto another. If the catholic church wants to say that they refuse to marry gay people, they have that right....gay people are welcome to "marry" somewhere else. A church should not be forced to accept another's belief system.

I think what you're saying here is: Let homosexual couples be in a legally binding and recognized relationship and have the socioeconomic benefits of such, but just don't call it 'marriage' because that's a religion-related term.

Historically, many cultures had civil marriages, so marriage is not necessarily religious in its origin. The problem that I see with what you're proposing is that, in the US, it is the State - not the Church - that grants marriage certification. Religious ceremonies abound, but they are not recognized legally in and of themselves. In fact, in most areas, the religious institution requires a civil certificate of marriage before proceeding with a religious ceremony.

Furthermore, as you've pointed out, the government grants benefits to married couples that are unavailable to unmarried couples. While I don't see this is a pure equal rights issue (as many frame it) - because homosexual men and women are eligible to engage in heterosexual marriages, albeit against their character - I think that in practice it is a form of institutionalized discrimination. This would be resolved under your proposal.

At that point, it becomes a matter of semantics. But, if that's the case, a similar argument could be made that any couple that receives legal recognition of their familial commitment should not be regarded as marriage unless they too have gone through a religious ceremony. I, therefore, am not a married man - because my wife and I are not religious people and were instead pronounced as husband-and-wife by a JP. I suppose we are only in a civil union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I am a social liberal, but a very fiscal conservative....I have no problem whatsoever with gay people wanting equal rights, and having them. However, I do understand the argument made by the "religious right" that gay people should not be allowed to marry....My understanding of the religious objection to gay people marrying is that marriage is considered an extension of the church - that is, that without the church there would be no such thing as marriage.

It has a long history of being a legal and political institution, as well as religious. People would marry to sign a treaty, acquire new land, etc.

However if gay people want to force a church or other religious institution to treat them the same as heterosexuals then I do object to that. I do not think anyone's beliefs should be forced onto another. If the catholic church wants to say that they refuse to marry gay people, they have that right....gay people are welcome to "marry" somewhere else. A church should not be forced to accept another's belief system.

Nobody is going to force the Catholic Church to marry homosexuals. Is the Catholic Church forced to marry Jews or Protestants? No. They marry whoever they want, and giving homosexuals a legal right to marry doesn't force any particular church to hold the ceremony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My objection to the marriage of homosexuals is that I object to marriage, civil unions, and the differential treatment of "joined" (as opposed to "unjoined") persons altogether. There's no sense in it. Why aren't social liberals, fiscal conservatives, atheists, and homosexuals having that conversation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My objection to the marriage of homosexuals is that I object to marriage, civil unions, and the differential treatment of "joined" (as opposed to "unjoined") persons altogether. There's no sense in it. Why aren't social liberals, fiscal conservatives, atheists, and homosexuals having that conversation?

It's probably true that your post was made facetiously, but I'll entertain it...

I think the principal 'public' benefits that couple enjoy in our society are joint tax filing and insurance benefits. Both are for rather the same principal reason, I think: reduction of risk to a guarantor of benefits. People in committed relationships are not only bound romantically but - more importantly for the government/insurer - fiscally, as well. People in committed relationships tend to take less risk with their person or things, and their risk of financial destitution is lower. I believe these are the reasons why both government and insurers tend to charge lower fees (taxes or premiums) for their services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it wasn't meant to be facetious at all.

I don't disagree that people in committed relationships tend to be more risk averse, although there are a lot of convoluting data and noise to the marriage variable, too. For instance, I also notice that DINKs are less risk averse than couples with children...but they also have more disposable income with which to buy better food and consumer goods, and no kids to provide healthcare for or to drive around excessively. Likewise, unhappy couples are less risk averse than happy couples, but the familial and financial implications of state laws override agreements that the couple might otherwise come to in order to separate and be happier/healthier. These are problems with marriage as an indicator for actuarial purposes; it is a wide umbrella that covers too many possible permutations.

Imagine marriage agreements of a sort that mirrored the standard formats and flexibility of TREC documents for real estate purchases and leases. Then consider how reliable actuarial predictions could become if marriage contracts were all available as a matter of public record in order to be valid. A clause assuring extreme punitive consequences for extramarital affairs would likely discourage risky behavior of a particular sort; a clause requiring a vasectomy by the male would indicate that insurance payouts for a pregnancy would be unlikely; a clause allowing for immediate and unilateral dissolution of a marriage without punitive consequences might indicate that its more like a cohabitation agreement between an uncommitted couple (and maybe that is something that should exist, as a matter of policy, anyway).

So I don't see the insurance issue as being a problem working against contracted unions. I see it as a potential upside.

As for joint tax filings, if two people can form a business partnership or a corporation, and then either file for it separately on individual tax returns or jointly on the corporate return with distributions to the individuals covered by the individual filing, then I don't see any problem with contracted unions that couldn't reasonably be worked out in the contract or in the Internal Revenue Code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a clause allowing for immediate and unilateral dissolution of a marriage without punitive consequences might indicate that its more like a cohabitation agreement between an uncommitted couple (and maybe that is something that should exist, as a matter of policy, anyway).

This actually already exists to a large degree. A common law marriage exists where the two parties agree to live together and hold themselves out as married. It is known legally as an "informal marriage"

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.2.htm#2.401

Additionally, if no divorce is filed within two years of separation of the parties, a presumption arises that there was no marriage. In other words, the parties are informally divorced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally, if no divorce is filed within two years of separation of the parties, a presumption arises that there was no marriage.

But...if there is a divorce filed, then wouldn't all the implications of a marriage construed by state law (such as community property) suddenly come into play? It could be quite an ordeal, I'd imagine. Especially if one party to an "informal marriage" incurred a great deal of consumer debt (with/without the knowledge or consent of the other party) or if one party earned a great deal of money during the "informal marriage".

Don't get me wrong, it's still good that there is a catchall for situations like that, where idiots are averse to paperwork or paranoid crazies don't want to be monitored by big brother. It's just that if people are allowed to have multiple types of business partnerships and corporations with all kinds of zany partnership and operating agreements, I just feel like they should be allowed to have multiple types of marriages that best suit their purposes, their risk tolerances, their lifestyles, and really whatever they think will make them the most happy as a couple. They should recognize that the parameters of their relationship will be public record and that there will be advantages or disadvantages will be contractual with logical market-driven consequences.

(I'm not unreasonable, though. For instance, there should be a higher standard for someone to be able to earn citizenship by marriage than mere cohabitation. The traditional 'general partnership' format of marriage seems like it would limit the potential for human trafficking and sexual exploitation a lot more effectively.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems to me a monogamous marriage, whether sanctified by an organized religion or not, has historically accomplished 2 things a society of humans prefers:

the reduction of intra-society strife due to the fact that any one male can impregnate unlimited #s of females and almost all are more than willing to do so if there are no consequences other than risking death at the hands of the cuckolded male.

and growth of population by the procreation of functional citizens that exceeds the # to replace the existing population, the raising of which has been best handled by 2 adults since the beginning of human social organization.

Niche's family law jobs program layed out above demonstrates how far he thinks we as a modern society have come from that history. :)

I guess I have a more Hobbesian opinion of modern humans...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Niche's family law jobs program layed out above demonstrates how far he thinks we as a modern society have come from that history. :)

I guess I have a more Hobbesian opinion of modern humans...

I'm really proposing that most family lawyers become contract lawyers. That's all. There will still be a place for child custody and child support battles, etc. ...but that's true for married people, re-married people, single people, and really anybody with children. Their marital status is (or should be) irrelevant.

The system of contracts that I'd like to see in place would provide for the possibility of polyamorous relationships. I have nothing against that. It seems to conform to the real world anyway, more or less. It just recognizes and legitimizes human behavior, takes it out of the shadows.

Family law such as we know it in this country is a relatively new innovation in the course of human history. Hell, it wasn't even until the formation of the Anglican church that westerners could get divorced. They'd have to deal with the cumbersome annulment process. I think that if one were to study the deep history of family law across cultures and over time, a conclusion would be reached that humans are quite flexible in their thinking and their ability to adapt to a great variety of systems.

As for my view of modern humans, it's also pretty Hobbesian. It is my pessimism and disgust regarding the incredibly creative ways that we conjure up to hurt one another that informs my opinion that contracts should be flexible, binding, enforcable, and public information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The system of contracts that I'd like to see in place would provide for the possibility of polyamorous relationships. I have nothing against that. It seems to conform to the real world anyway, more or less. It just recognizes and legitimizes human behavior, takes it out of the shadows.

from organized religion to manners to government, recognizing and controlling human behavior, rather than legitimizing it, has been civilization's project for millenia.

the opinions in this thread, for and against, would have been considered insane ramblings as recently as 2 or 3 generations ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...