Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but what I can't understand is any NON-RELIGIOUS reason that same-sex civil unions could detrimentally impact one's quality-of-life.
Just curious....for the sake of discussion....is that the test we should apply to situations like this ? ie...if it dosen't detrimentally impact someone else's quality-of-life then it should be a socially acceptable behavior??
Is that really the test we should apply?
In a flash I'm sure any of us could dream up of any number of extremely bizarre circumstances that would pass that test. Should they too be permitted, and if not why not ? Or is it just "certain types of politically/socially correct relationships" that get this special "approval" ? What are the new rules to be used as we dynamically continue to "expand" the traditional meanings of marrage,relationship,lover,friend,soul mate etc etc.
BTW,Of course the poll results are exactly what you wanted...and expected. It was after all a question that really didn't need to be asked...again. ...
Just curious....for the sake of discussion....is that the test we should apply to situations like this ? ie...if it dosen't detrimentally impact someone else's quality-of-life then it should be a socially acceptable behavior??
Is that really the test we should apply?
In a flash I'm sure any of us could dream up of any number of extremely bizarre circumstances that would pass that test.
I think that people should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want except for initiating non-consensual, causally direct (1) physical violence, (2) property crimes and (3) contractual fraud. The test for borderline cases would be whether observable effects last for more than 24 hours (so that someone nonconsensually tapping you on the shoulder wouldn't be prohibited, but punching you would be).
this is the one issue that I may be alittle liberal on. I feel that anything in this day and age to make two people want to commit to each other is good for the whole of society. IT stops disease and helps the institution of marriage!!!
It doesn't hurt or help. And married people get diseases too. This is about discrimination not about the outdated institution of marriage (as most of us know it at least). There is a culture that exists in the southern U.S. that does not exist in most of the U.S. A genuine culture connected to religion. That would not be the case in most other places. Change needs to happen on a national level.
Forget about marriage and look at basic issues of discrimination. Lecturing about marriage takes this issue way off track and is a waste of time. Many people will not bother marrying when it does come available but there are certain protections they may still need. They Gay lobby or whoever they are need new leadership. They can't make a good arguement if their life depended on it. If you try to fight by moralizing you are doing just what the other side is doing and you are taking many steps backward. Many straight people are unmarried and need protections too. When you stop preaching marriage you will find many more allies.
Just curious....for the sake of discussion....is that the test we should apply to situations like this ? ie...if it dosen't detrimentally impact someone else's quality-of-life then it should be a socially acceptable behavior??
Is that really the test we should apply?
I suddenly thought of a magical pig with marital aids suck all over it.... along with a telefunken u47.
It doesn't hurt or help. And married people get diseases too. This is about discrimination not about the outdated institution of marriage (as most of us know it at least). There is a culture that exists in the southern U.S. that does not exist in most of the U.S. A genuine culture connected to religion. That would not be the case in most other places. Change needs to happen on a national level.
Forget about marriage and look at basic issues of discrimination. Lecturing about marriage takes this issue way off track and is a waste of time. Many people will not bother marrying when it does come available but there are certain protections they may still need. They Gay lobby or whoever they are need new leadership. They can't make a good arguement if their life depended on it. If you try to fight by moralizing you are doing just what the other side is doing and you are taking many steps backward. Many straight people are unmarried and need protections too. When you stop preaching marriage you will find many more allies.
How about the law should not be taking moral stances on behavior of which the actual lack of morality is debatable at best? How about the fact that the government should respect people's privacy and not be giving financial benefit to a custom in which the government is seemingly defining with warped and controversial version of morality? How about the none of my business what 2 grown adults do test? How about there are huge issues going on in this world and instead of voting and having debates about those, we are using these ridiculous fluff issues to distract us from the real problems that are arising when the only people affected by this legislation are the ones who are being unfairly slighted currently? I think there are alot of litmus tests that could be applied here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBrown
Just curious....for the sake of discussion....is that the test we should apply to situations like this ? ie...if it dosen't detrimentally impact someone else's quality-of-life then it should be a socially acceptable behavior??
Is that really the test we should apply?
In a flash I'm sure any of us could dream up of any number of extremely bizarre circumstances that would pass that test. Should they too be permitted, and if not why not ? Or is it just "certain types of politically/socially correct relationships" that get this special "approval" ? What are the new rules to be used as we dynamically continue to "expand" the traditional meanings of marrage,relationship,lover,friend,soul mate etc etc.
BTW,Of course the poll results are exactly what you wanted...and expected. It was after all a question that really didn't need to be asked...again. ...
"gay couples have the right to be just as miserable as hetero couples".
This is a great line. I think the first guy to say it was advertising mogul, Jerry Della Femina. He said "gay couples have every right to be just as miserable as the rest of us", many years ago. It is such a great line that many people, including myself, have stolen it since then.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
