|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
 Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 3:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| luckylady wrote: |
[what I don't really get is why repubs in general are so against gay marriage - ? it's so hypocritical to say one supports family values but only heterosexual ones 
what's so threatening about gays getting married? I mean, really, who cares? why is it anyone's business????
|
Because gay marriage is really a religious issue masquerading as something else. Same with anti-abortion. Its really a religious issue for the people against it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
...and Rand Paul:
| Quote: |
| �Call me cynical, but I didn�t think his views on marriage could get any gayer,� - Rand Paul on president Obama. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
The two sides on this issue:
Libertarians believe in Individual Liberty and the right of each person to choose: to be single, married, celebate, virginal, slutty, gay, straight, lesbian, bi, plural marriage, gay marriage ... whatever ... the government has no right to regulate the peaceful, private choices of individuals.
Fascist-socialists, statists, theocrats ... who oppose Individual Liberty can be seen displaying their illogic here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H-CAcdta_8I
There is no middle ground. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| There is no middle ground. |
...if you're an unabashed ideologue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Because gay marriage is really a religious issue masquerading as something else. Same with anti-abortion. Its really a religious issue for the people against it. |
Homosexual marriage and abortion have nothing whatsoever to do with another, other than the fact that opinions on each are for some reason split along party lines. The only valid arguments against homosexual marriage are religious in nature, but the same is far from true for abortion. The two simply cannot be equated.
| northway wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| There is no middle ground. |
...if you're an unabashed ideologue. |
No, he's right. You can either choose to force your opinion of marriage on others by demanding the government define the religious term one way or the other, or you can choose to let each individual decide what marriage means. There really is no other choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Because gay marriage is really a religious issue masquerading as something else. Same with anti-abortion. Its really a religious issue for the people against it. |
Homosexual marriage and abortion have nothing whatsoever to do with another, other than the fact that opinions on each are for some reason split along party lines. The only valid arguments against homosexual marriage are religious in nature, but the same is far from true for abortion. The two simply cannot be equated.
| northway wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| There is no middle ground. |
...if you're an unabashed ideologue. |
No, he's right. You can either choose to force your opinion of marriage on others by demanding the government define the religious term one way or the other, or you can choose to let each individual decide what marriage means. There really is no other choice. |
What about restrictions based on age and number of people, that isn't inherently religious, but does seem to be a reasonable middle ground. Unless you are an ideologue, like northway put it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| What about restrictions based on age and number of people, that isn't inherently religious, but does seem to be a reasonable middle ground. Unless you are an ideologue, like northway put it. |
There is an answer based on freedom and an answer based on authoritarianism (the imposition of one's subjective view of right and wrong on other people).
Adults should be free to do what they will with whomever they choose. Children under the age of consent are clearly another matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| What about restrictions based on age and number of people, that isn't inherently religious, but does seem to be a reasonable middle ground. Unless you are an ideologue, like northway put it. |
There is an answer based on freedom and an answer based on authoritarianism (the imposition of one's subjective view of right and wrong on other people).
Adults should be free to do what they will with whomever they choose. Children under the age of consent are clearly another matter. |
Again, this is ideological rather than practical. A marriage, or civil union, is best set up for two people in terms of legal benefits such as power of attorney, visitation rights, the ability to get a spousal visa, things to do with kids, etc. The institution is ancient and found in pretty much every society, once the whole gay marriage thing is taken care of, than I fail to see the authoritarianism, rather I see people who view everything through a lens of authoritarianism or libertarian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There's usually a middle ground between "my opinion" and "evil authoritarian countryman". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| What about restrictions based on age and number of people, that isn't inherently religious, but does seem to be a reasonable middle ground. |
Polygamy restrictions certainly are religious, and polygamous marriages should be treated no differently than homosexual or heterosexual ones, meaning they shouldn't be defined out of existence either.
Age restrictions are another bag entirely, as there are legitimate reasons for age of consent laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| What about restrictions based on age and number of people, that isn't inherently religious, but does seem to be a reasonable middle ground. |
Polygamy restrictions certainly are religious, and polygamous marriages should be treated no differently than homosexual or heterosexual ones, meaning they shouldn't be defined out of existence either.
Age restrictions are another bag entirely, as there are legitimate reasons for age of consent laws. |
Again, no that's not really true. How many spousal visas should someone get, how do you delineate things like power of attorney and visitation rights, not to mention if there are kids involved how do you work things out in a "divorce" what's to stop a group of people to take advantage of it for legal reasons, how many people is the limit, what's to stop a start up company from all marrying for tax benefits, all of these are practical, not religious, things to consider. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Again, no that's not really true. |
You're confusing two completely separate issues, one being the legal benefits conferred by unions / marriages, and the other being the issue of defining a religious term. One demands government involvement, at least insomuch as one is needed to enforce contract stipulations (for example, hospital visitations normally restricted to family members) and has already passed the national debate stage (like I said before, most people are in favor of homosexual couples having benefits similar to those normally conferred by marriage). The other should demand the government's absence, at least in a secular society, and is the current topic of debate for most Americans (and this thread, at least as far I can tell). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| The institution is ancient and found in pretty much every society, once the whole gay marriage thing is taken care of, than I fail to see the authoritarianism, rather I see people who view everything through a lens of authoritarianism or libertarian. |
How ironic. I'm sure someone who's against marriage equality could say the exact same sentence.
Your support of government's influence on people's private lives is based on the fact that it's an "ancient institution found in pretty much every society"? Well, sure it is. But that has nothing to do with the government.
Once you decide to give tax benefits or special privileges to certain people based on their lifestyle, you've 1: gone astray on equality and 2: dug yourself a deep moral hole. Why should polygamy or polyandry be treated differently than heterosexual or homosexual marriage in the eyes of government? You're saying that 2-person marriage should be promoted by the government because it's an ancient and near-universal institution, but isn't that exactly the rational behind the forces of homophobia? In this situation, how can you claim the moral high ground?
The only moral path is to discard government benefits for certain lifestyles. Practical considerations can then be made non-judgmentally:
1 Spousal visa is allowed
Power of Attorney falls to the first spouse if no legal documents indicate otherwise.
Situations of children in divorce are already handled by judges, I think they can continue to handle that.
Tax benefits to be discontinued. There's no reason a government should support or oppose certain lifestyles. Why should single people be taxed more anyway?
Claiming that we need government in our marriages is at best a sign of lazy thinking and at worst a poor attempt to hide one's own desire to impose their ideal society on others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| The institution is ancient and found in pretty much every society, once the whole gay marriage thing is taken care of, than I fail to see the authoritarianism, rather I see people who view everything through a lens of authoritarianism or libertarian. |
How ironic. I'm sure someone who's against marriage equality could say the exact same sentence.
Your support of government's influence on people's private lives is based on the fact that it's an "ancient institution found in pretty much every society"? Well, sure it is. But that has nothing to do with the government.
Once you decide to give tax benefits or special privileges to certain people based on their lifestyle, you've 1: gone astray on equality and 2: dug yourself a deep moral hole. Why should polygamy or polyandry be treated differently than heterosexual or homosexual marriage in the eyes of government? You're saying that 2-person marriage should be promoted by the government because it's an ancient and near-universal institution, but isn't that exactly the rational behind the forces of homophobia? In this situation, how can you claim the moral high ground?
The only moral path is to discard government benefits for certain lifestyles. Practical considerations can then be made non-judgmentally:
1 Spousal visa is allowed
Power of Attorney falls to the first spouse if no legal documents indicate otherwise.
Situations of children in divorce are already handled by judges, I think they can continue to handle that.
Tax benefits to be discontinued. There's no reason a government should support or oppose certain lifestyles. Why should single people be taxed more anyway?
Claiming that we need government in our marriages is at best a sign of lazy thinking and at worst a poor attempt to hide one's own desire to impose their ideal society on others. |
Not everything is a out and out moral battle ground. Of course the government should promote certain lifestyles, to do otherwise would be unwise. Should the government promote things like health through certain programs and tax structures? What about education? Things like that are a public good in that everyone in that society benefits. Public goods is one are that libertarians are very weak on. Society benefits from the institution of marriage, and as such it's fair that society (the government) provides some benefits. We need government in marriage, as marriage is a legal matter. It makes the most sense, for the reasons I've already sketched out, if legally it is between two people. I know that gay people can get married in a church ceremony, and be married in their eyes and the churches eyes, even if the state doesn't recognize it currently. I believe the laws that punish polygamy should be removed, and that people should be free to do so in a ceremonial way, but not in a legal manner.
For all this talk about moral high grounds and authoritarianism, how come the Scandinavian countries have a higher per-capita GDP, higher quality of life scores, less crime, etc. etc.
Government involvement in neither inherently good or bad. The world is not black or white, try to look at things from a different perspective from time to time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For goodness sakes, let the stupid, worse than Al-Qaeda, gays marry so they can shut up about it.
At the very least, put it to a vote in each county and let each county decide if you can marry your queer lover and his horse too or that every marriage must be conducted by a member of the Royal & Ancient Mariner's Society at the Elk's Lodge and approved by the Grand Vizier of Lapland. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
