Results 25 to 36 of 46
Thread: Ted Cruz
-
11-01-2013, 02:49 PM #25
Re: Ted Cruz
well so far in this thread, one person who is supportive of gay rights has equated plural marriage to marrying goats and toasters. So it goes both ways. Adult humans marrying adult humans is what we are talking about here. I fail to see how there is any, let alone HUGE differences between changing the definition from 1 man, 1 woman, to 1 adult human, to another adult human, vs allowing adult humans to marry any other adult humans they want(plural). What is it about 2 man or 2 women that is BETTER then 3-15 like minded adults of differing or similar genders.
-
Re: Ted Cruz
If some guy has a bunch of wives and the few don't know about each other, who cares?
I mean, that guy is a scumbag and will probably get caught and have to face some significant divorce charges.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkDisclaimer: The content posted is of my own opinion.
-
11-01-2013, 05:00 PM #27Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Ted Cruz
I see. I take a side that's traditionally on the left and all of a sudden I am Galen. Let's stow the personal shots, K?
You brought up the "two consenting adults" argument, intimating that whatever two consenting adults do should be ok. I used absurdity to prove that notion wrong.
Biology is A way of making a family. It's NOT the ONLY way.
The denial of gay marriage stigmatizes gay couples as inferior, that's why it's important to me. I have close friends and relatives who are gay, all of whom deserve the same rights we enjoy.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you in one vein. I think saying who can and cannot marry is a silly endeavor. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world that runs that way at the moment. I have an issue when the state says you CAN'T marry the person you love vis a vie laws that define marriage between a man and a woman.
-
11-01-2013, 05:17 PM #28
Re: Ted Cruz
Has noting to do with what "side" your stance traditionally falls on, it's the out of context extremist examples that remind me of RoboGalen. But I do find humor in the fact that we can all agree that referring to someone as "Galen-like" is a personal shot. No offense was intended as a personal shot, simply a shot at the style of discussion you were employing.
It is simply my take that any consenting adults should be able to "marry" any other consenting adults they wish. I don't care to limit it in quantity or gender. It's not your pro-gay marriage stance that I take issue with, it's your anti-polygamy. I find it incredibly hypocritical, as evidenced by each and every word you add on to this subject.
Correct, Biology is only one way, and adoption is absolutely and under-promoted ideal that can help poor souls out of bad situations, and perhaps even live, when otherwise they would be killed before their first breath. But you insinuated that a gay couple is more prepared to form a family then a plural marriage would be which I find hysterical.
The denial of plural marriage stigmatizes plural marriage families as inferior, that's why it's important to me. I have known people who are proponents of plural marriage, all of whom deserve the same rights we enjoy.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you in one vein. I think saying who can and cannot marry is a silly endeavor. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world that runs that way at the moment. I have an issue when the state says you CAN'T marry the person you love vis a vie laws that define marriage between one man and one woman.
Honestly, I've never met true polygamists, but like a joke, it works best from the first person. I watched Big Love faithfully, and am playing the Devil's advocate here. I do however see absolutely no reason to separate the two issues. If we are to change the marriage laws and remove all the antiquated provisions, we might as well do it all at once. Children, Animals and toasters all deserve the protection the law provides, but consenting adults deserve the freedom to choose to marry whomever they love.
I still think it is a states issue, and I also still think it is NOT an issue worth winning even a single vote over. I can understand that certain people feel it is, but those who feel that way deserve the failing economic policy we are getting by focusing on such issues.
-
-
11-01-2013, 05:35 PM #30Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
-
-
11-02-2013, 01:57 PM #32
-
11-07-2013, 09:33 PM #33Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 128
Re: Ted Cruz
Maybe it would be better if the state got out of the business of recognizing marriages period. Marriages are essentially a religious institution which could easily be replaced by legal contracts for those who would marry anything capable of legal consent. The fact that the state recognizes it as a legal entity with significant implications other than contractual is pretty much the state's usurpation of a religious institution. Tax status, medical insurance, etc etc are all things that the state has embedded into the status of married which is why gay people want to take advantage of it. When the state confers benefits to one class of people the pressure is on for them to expand the class that benefits. If you don't like gay marriage, remove it from the state's purview by removing all state sponsored benefits from it. Incidentally, I haven't heard any gay couples ( especially the male ones) complain that their family coverage under Obamacare has to include pregnancy and birth control. Not quite sure how much extra this costs but ....
-
11-08-2013, 12:46 PM #34
Re: Ted Cruz
But that is not entirely the case. When these discussions come up, generally Gay people still feel slighted by the term "Civil Union" even if it includes all benefits of marriage but those embedded by the "public" at large and churches. Gay people want to feel like everyone else, and have it be accepted by everyone else, including churches, or at least that is the presumption I come across from these discussions.
-
Re: Ted Cruz
well if every straight couple is married and every gay couple is a union, its not the same. I think it has very little to do with the Churches as it does the governments definition. though the minority im sure, theres still plenty of churches that do recognize gay people and will marry them. If marriage is replaced by union, im sure that would be suffice, but theres going to be a lot of "marriage Licenses" that are no longer valid, which means it probably wont happen that way. At this point it has to be marriage or bust for that reason. would have been a lot easier if a religious word never got written into a law.
-JAB
-
11-08-2013, 03:05 PM #36Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 128
Re: Ted Cruz
If you turn your statement around what you are in effect saying is that Gay people want to use the state to coerce everyone else to accept their definition of marriage. It is not about equality under the law but about using the law as a means to force people to think and act a certain way. The fact that the state can use its power to force people to accept something that many of them consider to be morally wrong at the behest of a relatively small but vocal minority is kind of scary.
Bookmarks