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.
So what? This is a completely hypothetical situation, so why not give your input? Or is this a thinly veiled admission that you cannot answer?
Youre actually quite wrong, but since this thread is not meant discuss that aspect of the issue, I'll leave it at that.
I'd like to know what the poster is wrong about. The way i see it, the poster is right. Mo does ban same sex marriage, as well as 4 other States i can think of.
So what's the problem.
Is this not considered a State's issue to you.
My state has already had it say and affirmed marriage as being between one man and one woman.
This is a state issue, not a federal one, no matter how much of a federal case the gay activists try to make it.
A state issue for the time being, but that can change....It was a provincial issue in Canada until 2005, then the federal government legalized same sex marriage nation wide...I imagine that is what will happen in the US within ten years of less.
The involvement of the state in marriage has been a colossal mistake. Government involvement means that love and commitment become sterile, linked to legislation and weighted down with legal implications that are psychologically suffocating. Aware people feel consciously or unconsciously disempowered from the moment they say, “I do.”
The government, in fact, should have no role in marriage, whatsoever. There should be no income tax distinction between married and single people. Each person should file as an individual. That would simplify the debate about same sex marriage (or marriage between three people—which I guarantee you is in the offing), because the state would be out of the marriage business entirely. Laws should exist, instead, that simply commit parents to financially support their biological children. Beyond that, it should be left to the individuals involved (husbands and wives) to go see lawyers to write any financial contracts between them that they wish to.
Getting government out of our marriages would do a lot to make them feel less confining.
You have been assigned a section of a medium sized city where your constituents will be outer urban/suburban types, and almost uniformly undecided on this issue.
You will never find a section of a city where constituents are almost uniformly undecided on this issue. As if voters haven't formed opinions before someone comes campaigning at their door.
Quote:
Now, here is the big caveat. You cannot argue your views from a position of religious/moral conservatism.
Flip this scenario and imagine that you are campaigning IN FAVOR of same sex marriage. Don't homosexuals use religion in many instances to push for their cause? In many cases homosexuals see religious people who agree with them as allies.
You may want to get religion out of the way as a justification against same sex marriage, but do homosexuals really want God or religion out of their marriages? I've heard many Gays claim to be Christians.
Or do homosexuals only want state recognition of their unions, so that they are governed exactly in the same way as heterosexual marriages in the eyes of the law?
Homosexuals use religion when it helps them and denounce it when it doesn't help them.
It makes you wonder about the sincerity of "Christian" homosexuals who formally declare their devotion to Jesus Christ.
I've spent quite a bit of time here debating the merits of same sex marriage, but I never did go and start this thread and since it seems to be a hot button issue again, I figured now would be as good a time as any.
Here is the hypothetical situation. Imagine that you are a high ranking member of a political campaign that is pushing to enact a state law/constitutional amendment that will mandate that only marriages between one man and one woman will be legally recognized and civil unions between homosexual couples will not be legally recognized, much like the amendment recently passed in North Carolina. Your job in this campaign is to decide on a strategy to raise support for your cause with local voters. You have been assigned a section of a medium sized city where your constituents will be outer urban/suburban types, and almost uniformly undecided on this issue.
You have two tasks.
1. Describe how you would "sell" your views to this voting block.
2. Specifically, justify the banning of same sex civil unions as well as marriage, as you believe these voters will ask for this justification.
Now, here is the big caveat. You CANNOT argue your views from a position of religious/moral conservatism. For whatever the reason may be (high percentage of atheist/agnostics, support separation of church and state...etc) your campaign has determined that such a tactic would not only fail, but would likely push people to vote against you and as such you have been ordered by your superiors to stay away from this argument.
Discuss...
I don't think it's fair to exclude 'morality' from the argument because many issues are framed in moral terms, but I'll play anyways.
My 1st tv ad would be a loving hetero couple with 2 cherubic children doing things family do [This]. Followed by a few leather clad, fake boobed guys from a gay day parade in the most x-rated poses tv allows, with the children transposed to that image. [or That]. A think of the children theme.
Next I'd take the most costly estimates to social security, health care, and any other benefits granted to spouses and put those in an economic-oriented ad.
Then I'd move on to use the 'slippery slope' and std themes.
I'd like to know what the poster is wrong about. The way i see it, the poster is right. Mo does ban same sex marriage, as well as 4 other States i can think of.
So what's the problem.
Is this not considered a State's issue to you.
Again, I do not want to drag the discussion off into that direction as its not the point of this thread. If you want to start the "marriage: state of federal issue" thread, I'll be happy to post in that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilovethecommunity
I don't get it. For those who want to "preserve heterosexual marriage".
How will gay marriage affect heterosexual marriage?
That is really what I was hoping to create a discussion about. I was hoping that asking those who are against same sex marriage to pitch their views without the benefit of the morality card would be an interesting discussion. The fact that this thread is almost 24 hours old now and still without a serious response from that side is very telling, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooperkat
Hypothetical indeed. And unrealistic.
I'm surprised you were intelligent enough to figure this out, but seemingly failed to realize that it was a deliberate step meant to foster a deeper and legitimate conversation.
If two adults desire to become married, regardless of sexual orientation, the state should certify their arrangement. It should make no law for or against church sanctification of the same.
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.
