SydLexia.com Forum Index
"Stay awhile. Stay... FOREVER!"

  [Edit Profile]  [Search]  [Memberlist]  [Usergroups]  [FAQ]  [Register]
[Who's Online]  [Log in to check your private messages]  [Log in]
General Political Issues (2012 Election)


Reply to topic
Author Message
mjkefka
Joined: Apr 17 2011
Location: Vegas Baby
PostPosted: Nov 09 2012 05:59 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Yes, it does boil down to differences in philosophies. Those who do not have their rights infringed upon as often as those who do often don't believe that government should intervene in protecting the disenfranchised and those who can not defend themselves. You are a white, straight male Republican, so I understand your point of view just fine. If you were told by your government that you could not do what others around you could simply because of how you were born, perhaps you'd see the role of government differently.
View user's profileSend private message
sidewaydriver
2010 SLF Tag Champ
Title: ( ͡� &#8
Joined: May 11 2008
PostPosted: Nov 09 2012 06:09 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I think an easy solution to this whole gay marriage issue is to give them the same deal we gave the Native Americans. We can give the gays their own reservation where they can have their own laws and send them all there. Then they can open up casinos and have Barbra Streisand and Cher perform every night.

Now I know what you're thinking and don't worry, you don't have to thank me for this brilliant, reasonable solution to this issue.


Shake it, Quake it, Space Kaboom.
 
View user's profileSend private message
mjkefka
Joined: Apr 17 2011
Location: Vegas Baby
PostPosted: Nov 09 2012 06:15 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I love you sideway. ;P
View user's profileSend private message
Cattivo
Joined: Apr 14 2006
Location: Lake Michigan
PostPosted: Nov 09 2012 06:26 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I understand the other point of view just fine, especially because my gay uncle, who is also my godfather, and has lived with his partner for over thirty years, thinks the very concept of gay marriage is an oxymoron. Look, if gay people want to be married, I don’t care if they do. If women want abortions, whatever. Use all the birth control you want, just don’t make me pay for it; I’m happy buying condoms at about a buck a piece for myself. I may not agree with what you do, but free will allows you to do what you want, by making your own choices. I just don’t want the federal government to have a say either way. If one state says you can’t kill a fetus or marry someone of the same sex, but you want to do either, change the laws in your current state, or move to a state that allows you to do so. That’s the beauty of being in a union of fifty states with their own separate laws under the federal government. For example, Illinois is currently going bankrupt, and the politics don't show any sign of changing, so I’m considering moving to Indiana to be with people who have the same fiscally responsible opinions as me. Hell, I might even move to my gf’s home state of Nebraska, or even Texas. That’s what makes America so great and diverse.

FYI, I’m about to leave work, so I probably won’t see any further responses until I’m eating Lunch on Monday.

- Lol, I just read Sideway's response after I typed this up. ha HA!
View user's profileSend private message
Cameron
Title: :O � O:
Joined: Feb 01 2008
Location: St. Louis, MO
PostPosted: Nov 09 2012 07:30 pm Reply with quote Back to top

You know, I've heard that argument before, and I have to say I think it's pretty unrealistic to say that people should just up and "leave their state if they don't like it". A lot of people lack both the funds and the job opportunities to move out of their state with security. Personally, my desire to see gay marriage approved on a federal level comes from my dissatisfaction with government on a state level and not having the capacity to move somewhere else. Yeah, the previous comment about Missouri not legalizing gay marriage on a state level was light-hearted, but I still meant it.
Cattivo wrote:
I understand the other point of view just fine, especially because my gay uncle, who is also my godfather, and has lived with his partner for over thirty years, thinks the very concept of gay marriage is an oxymoron.

Not trying to put words in your mouth, but I hope this wasn't meant to imply that your uncle speaks for the majority of gay Americans. My point being that I (and most other LGBT Americans) feel like gay marriage isn't just a success in regards to gay people getting married, but for LGBT tolerance in general. Violence and prejudice towards gay people is still very much rampant, and I'm hoping that legalizing gay marriage would be a step in the right direction against people being douchebags to each other about it.


Image
 
View user's profileSend private message
JoshWoodzy
Joined: May 22 2008
Location: Goshen, VA
PostPosted: Nov 10 2012 05:36 am Reply with quote Back to top



Image
 
View user's profileSend private messageAIM Address
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
PostPosted: Nov 15 2012 09:02 am Reply with quote Back to top

Cameron wrote:
Cattivo wrote:
I understand the other point of view just fine, especially because my gay uncle, who is also my godfather, and has lived with his partner for over thirty years, thinks the very concept of gay marriage is an oxymoron.

Not trying to put words in your mouth, but I hope this wasn't meant to imply that your uncle speaks for the majority of gay Americans. My point being that I (and most other LGBT Americans) feel like gay marriage isn't just a success in regards to gay people getting married, but for LGBT tolerance in general. Violence and prejudice towards gay people is still very much rampant, and I'm hoping that legalizing gay marriage would be a step in the right direction against people being douchebags to each other about it.

I simply don't think marriage should be recognized by state or federal governments at all. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments. You don't get a tax break for baptism or confirmation, why should you get one for marriage? It's fucking stupid.

If people want a tax break for entering into social partnerships, then the government should come up with its own separate thing. They can call it civil unions or whatever they want. It should require separate paperwork, and should be open to any two consenting adults.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's websiteAIM Address
Cameron
Title: :O � O:
Joined: Feb 01 2008
Location: St. Louis, MO
PostPosted: Nov 15 2012 04:49 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Do you think that's realistically ever going to happen, though? I definitely understand where you're coming from, but I think everyone getting their marriage-related tax breaks taken away is even less likely to happen then everyone receiving marriage-related tax breaks. I'd even go as far to say that it will probably never happen, at least not at any point during our lifetime.


Image
 
View user's profileSend private message
JoshWoodzy
Joined: May 22 2008
Location: Goshen, VA
PostPosted: Nov 15 2012 05:47 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I had a huge response for everything here, but the massive amount of whining that will happen isn't worth it.

I'm just glad to be living in a state of mind where it doesn't make me upset that two people who love each other want to get married and fucking call it marriage.


Image
 
View user's profileSend private messageAIM Address
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
PostPosted: Nov 15 2012 06:35 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Yes, Cameron, I do think it's realistic. That's how France does this and they're considered one of the more progressive countries on Earth.

Josh, honestly, I could give crap. Illegal, legal, same name, different name, I'll sleep at night no matter what. But I feel like 90% of the misdirected anger that people have over gay marriage is semantic. Religious marriage and civil marriage are two very different things, that have the unfortunate circumstance of having the same name. Remove the confusion, remove some of the problem.

And what I'm proposing is in some ways more insulting to Christians. Look at this way, my proposal is basically saying: "Okay, you religious types want marriage all to yourself? Have at it. You can have all the marriage you want, but it doesn't mean jack shit to anyone outside you, your spouse, and your priest/minister/rabbi/shaman. If you want Uncle Sam to recognize your partnership, you've got to go down to town hall just like the gays and get a civil union just like the gays, because the government gives zero fucks what went on in your church."
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's websiteAIM Address
JRA
Joined: Sep 17 2007
Location: The Opium Trail
PostPosted: Nov 16 2012 01:37 pm Reply with quote Back to top

JoshWoodzy wrote:


I saw this a few a weeks ago, but it rules!


There are a lot of what if's in life Donny. What if I hit you really hard in the face, knocked yo shit to the back of yo skull? What if I....had you girl gargle my nuts? The fact remains, you are a fuckin mutant.
 
View user's profileSend private message
Cameron
Title: :O � O:
Joined: Feb 01 2008
Location: St. Louis, MO
PostPosted: Nov 16 2012 03:52 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Syd Lexia wrote:
And what I'm proposing is in some ways more insulting to Christians. Look at this way, my proposal is basically saying: "Okay, you religious types want marriage all to yourself? Have at it. You can have all the marriage you want, but it doesn't mean jack shit to anyone outside you, your spouse, and your priest/minister/rabbi/shaman. If you want Uncle Sam to recognize your partnership, you've got to go down to town hall just like the gays and get a civil union just like the gays, because the government gives zero fucks what went on in your church."

I dunno, I feel like that would definitely solve the legal issues currently associated with the issue, but not the social ones. A lot of people would still be saying crap like "Ha ha, gay people! My marriage is still better than yours!" since the actual marriage part of gay marriage still wouldn't be legal and gay people wouldn't get the actual title. I think a lot of that mentality stems from the idea that love between two members of the same sex is somehow "lesser" or less legitimate than that of people with the opposite sex, and therefore they feel that any kind of marriage between gay people should and/or would reflect that.


Image
 
View user's profileSend private message
mjkefka
Joined: Apr 17 2011
Location: Vegas Baby
PostPosted: Nov 16 2012 04:26 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I dont think the government can do anything about though. We can't force people to feel one way or the other about a social issue. All we can ask is for equal rights.
View user's profileSend private message
Captain_Pollution
Title: Hugh
Joined: Sep 23 2007
PostPosted: Nov 16 2012 05:08 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Cameron wrote:
Syd Lexia wrote:
And what I'm proposing is in some ways more insulting to Christians. Look at this way, my proposal is basically saying: "Okay, you religious types want marriage all to yourself? Have at it. You can have all the marriage you want, but it doesn't mean jack shit to anyone outside you, your spouse, and your priest/minister/rabbi/shaman. If you want Uncle Sam to recognize your partnership, you've got to go down to town hall just like the gays and get a civil union just like the gays, because the government gives zero fucks what went on in your church."

I dunno, I feel like that would definitely solve the legal issues currently associated with the issue, but not the social ones. A lot of people would still be saying crap like "Ha ha, gay people! My marriage is still better than yours!" since the actual marriage part of gay marriage still wouldn't be legal and gay people wouldn't get the actual title. I think a lot of that mentality stems from the idea that love between two members of the same sex is somehow "lesser" or less legitimate than that of people with the opposite sex, and therefore they feel that any kind of marriage between gay people should and/or would reflect that.

I thought he was saying that "marriage," using that term, wouldn't be a legal issue at all, and that the legal variety would be given a different name. Complaining that most churches still wouldn't honour gay marriage is fine, but it's a complaint with the churches, not with the law. So "the actual marriage part of gay marriage" wouldn't be any more or less legal than a straight marriage.


<Drew_Linky> Well, I've eaten vegetables all of once in my life.

 
View user's profileSend private message
Hacker
Banned
Joined: Sep 13 2008
PostPosted: Nov 16 2012 05:28 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Cameron wrote:
Syd Lexia wrote:
And what I'm proposing is in some ways more insulting to Christians. Look at this way, my proposal is basically saying: "Okay, you religious types want marriage all to yourself? Have at it. You can have all the marriage you want, but it doesn't mean jack shit to anyone outside you, your spouse, and your priest/minister/rabbi/shaman. If you want Uncle Sam to recognize your partnership, you've got to go down to town hall just like the gays and get a civil union just like the gays, because the government gives zero fucks what went on in your church."

I dunno, I feel like that would definitely solve the legal issues currently associated with the issue, but not the social ones. A lot of people would still be saying crap like "Ha ha, gay people! My marriage is still better than yours!" since the actual marriage part of gay marriage still wouldn't be legal and gay people wouldn't get the actual title. I think a lot of that mentality stems from the idea that love between two members of the same sex is somehow "lesser" or less legitimate than that of people with the opposite sex, and therefore they feel that any kind of marriage between gay people should and/or would reflect that.

Cam you're being silly here.
What Syd's saying is pretty obvious, make it so everyone, gay or straight, has to file for a civil union.
If they want the government to recognize their union then they need to do it at the state level.

But for people who chose to get married in a church or whatever they need to also file for a civil union or the only person recognizing their marriage is God and as such they will not be entitled to any state benefits like tax breaks.

and yes, you will have some snooty people saying their marriage is better because God approves it, but who cares? At least this way everyone has the same rights

Also you know who else wanted to force his social views on everyone? Hitler, yeah, you think about that! This Is A Joke



 
View user's profileSend private message
username
Title: owner of a lonely heart
Joined: Jul 06 2007
Location: phoenix, az usa
PostPosted: Nov 16 2012 06:18 pm Reply with quote Back to top

who did we default to before hitler did his shit?

like, who was the evil person before that?

"you know who else bla bla bla? [insert name here]"


Klimbatize wrote:
I'll eat a turkey sandwich while blowing my load

 
View user's profileSend private messageAIM AddressYahoo MessengerMSN Messenger
Captain_Pollution
Title: Hugh
Joined: Sep 23 2007
PostPosted: Nov 16 2012 06:31 pm Reply with quote Back to top

username wrote:
who did we default to before hitler did his shit?

like, who was the evil person before that?

"you know who else bla bla bla? [insert name here]"

I wanna say Genghis Khan. It's probably Genghis Khan.


<Drew_Linky> Well, I've eaten vegetables all of once in my life.

 
View user's profileSend private message
Alowishus
Joined: Aug 04 2009
PostPosted: Nov 16 2012 06:31 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Here's what you need to do:

Quote:
Introduction

A civil partnership is a legal marriage between couples that are gay or lesbian. Once a civil partnership occurs between these couples, they are entitled to receive similar treatment and benefits as that of any married couple.

On December 5, 2005, The Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into effect in the UK, allowing couples of the same sex to have legal recognition of their relationship. Any couples who enter into a civil partnership obtain the new legal status of “Civil Partners”, instead of the traditional husband and wife status.

The act was not met without controversy, as the government had expected. Christian groups spoke out against civil partnerships, and committed mixed sex couples who live together argue that they do not receive the same rights as 'married' same sex couples now do.

The Ceremony & Registration

The Civil Partnership Act states that it will not allow any form of religious activity to occur during the process of registering the union. The act does not include a ceremony, and any couple that wishes to have a ceremony will need to contact the registration authority, where the union is to be entered, to find out whether a ceremony is possible.

During the registration. couples will be allowed to speak vows prior to signing the registration. Couples are also required to bring a minimum of two people, who will serve as witnesses and are able to sign the registration documents.

A same sex couple cannot enter into a civil partnership just anywhere. There are certain offices where the registration can take place; some examples being hotels, restaurants, and prestigious buildings. To enter the registration of a civil partnership there are a few steps to be taken:

Visit any office where registration may occur, and give notice of your intention to form a civil partnership.
Wait for fifteen days, the official notice period
Sign the registration, the two witnesses present must also to sign the registration

After entering the civil partnership, couples will receive a package that will outline the responsibilities and rights of each party that entered into the union. These will help to determine what is allowed as partners in a civil partnership. The responsibilities and rights that are outlined will begin the moment the partnership begins.

Benefits & Rights

In comparison with a civil marriage, civil partnerships will have the following equal rights, and responsibilities:

Benefits that are income-related will be considered in regards to joint treatment
Tax, including inheritance tax
Benefits from state pensions will also become a joint treatment
The duty of providing maintenance to your partner and any children of either party
Each party of the union will become a parental figure and thus become responsible for any children either person may have
Inheritance in regards to an agreement of tenancy
Domestic violence protection
Access to compensation of fatal accidents
Succeed to rights of tenancy
The registration of civil partnership will have merit for the purposes of immigration
Hospital visiting rights as next of kin
Like traditional marriage, those that are involved in a civil partnership are exempt from being required to testify in court against one another
Each partner has the responsibility to be assessed for child support, in the same manner as that of civil marriages
Treatment comparable to that of a civil marriage in regards to life assurance
Benefits that arise from Pension and Employment

Anonymity of Union

When heterosexual couples enter a civil marriage, certain information becomes available for public viewing, including names, occupations, and addresses of both parties.

However, because same sex marriages have become the centre of much controversy, and in effort to minimise the risk of harassment to either of the persons involved in a Civil Partnership, the government has decided that less information should be made public. Only names and occupations of the prospective civil partners are required to be made public.

Differences between Civil Partnerships and Civil Marriages

Although a civil partnership is essentially viewed as a “gay marriage”, between same sex partners, the reason it is not called a “gay marriage”, is that there are a few differences between a partnership and a marriage on a technical level.

A civil partnership becomes legal when the registration certificate is signed by both partners. This does not mean that it must be signed during a ceremony that is public or during any specific event. This allows the partner to enter into the partnership on a private basis. There need be no words exchanged. During a civil marriage, typically words are exchanged and then the register is signed.

A vast difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage is that a civil marriage almost always contains religious aspects during the marriage. The word marriage is a religious word in itself. Additionally, a clergy can perform civil marriages, whereas only specified registrars can perform a civil partnership.

There are also vast similarities between the two. In both a civil partnership and a civil marriage, the couples are required to give public notice of the intentions. The records of both are kept as official and public documents with the registry offices. Couples are required to wait a total of 15 days prior to registration but after giving notice of the partnership. After the 15 day waiting period the registration is given, and then it is valid for one full year after the date of registration.


Apparently same-sex couples have to pay more taxes than mixed sex couples. Apart from that there seems to be no clash in the rights between the two groups despite it claiming so in the text above.

Any refusal then is of religious intolerance as there is no basis for argument on rights.

EDIT: In fact apparently gay couples should be arguing that they have less rights, for example gay couples not being recognised in the legal definition of family.
View user's profileSend private message
Fighter_McWarrior
Title: Gun of Brixton
Joined: Jun 05 2011
Location: Down by the River
PostPosted: Nov 16 2012 08:56 pm Reply with quote Back to top

username wrote:
who did we default to before hitler did his shit?

like, who was the evil person before that?

"you know who else bla bla bla? [insert name here]"


Probably nobody. There were no internet forums at the time.


"Spanish bombs, yot' quierro y finito
Yo te querda oh ma corazón
Oh ma corazón, oh ma corazón" - The Clash, Spanish Bombs
 
View user's profileSend private message
username
Title: owner of a lonely heart
Joined: Jul 06 2007
Location: phoenix, az usa
PostPosted: Nov 16 2012 09:02 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Captain_Pollution wrote:
I wanna say Genghis Khan. It's probably Genghis Khan.

that was my thought as well. but thats way too far back. i was thinking they would someone in the last 100 years or so.
Fighter_McWarrior wrote:
Probably nobody. There were no internet forums at the time.

touche. tou-motherfucking-che


Klimbatize wrote:
I'll eat a turkey sandwich while blowing my load

 
View user's profileSend private messageAIM AddressYahoo MessengerMSN Messenger
sidewaydriver
2010 SLF Tag Champ
Title: ( &#865;� &#8
Joined: May 11 2008
PostPosted: Nov 16 2012 09:13 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Probably King George III.


Shake it, Quake it, Space Kaboom.
 
View user's profileSend private message
bassguy252
Title: Professional Malcontent
Joined: May 26 2010
Location: Mount Dhoom!!!!!!!
PostPosted: Nov 17 2012 02:12 am Reply with quote Back to top

whatever happened to the seperation of church and state?


Let's assume it's a mixture of the two!


 
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's websiteAIM AddressYahoo MessengerMSN Messenger
sidewaydriver
2010 SLF Tag Champ
Title: ( &#865;� &#8
Joined: May 11 2008
PostPosted: Nov 17 2012 02:16 am Reply with quote Back to top

They got counseling and now they're back together.


Shake it, Quake it, Space Kaboom.
 
View user's profileSend private message
Greg the White
Joined: Apr 09 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
PostPosted: Nov 17 2012 03:38 am Reply with quote Back to top

EDIT: Bad post, please disregard


So here's to you Mrs. Robinson. People love you more- oh, nevermind.
 
View user's profileSend private message
Greg the White
Joined: Apr 09 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
PostPosted: Nov 17 2012 03:44 am Reply with quote Back to top

There's a political cartoon called Filibuster that I usually wrote off as typical passive-agressive political cartoon crap, but has gotten better in recent years. The writer is a very thoughtful conservative who can make a lot of great points that scrape at my ideology a little. He made a great write-up on the state of conservatism that pretty much sums it up as more of a fashion statement than an ideology (in terms of public presentation, anyway). I think that the people who criticize the problems among their own ideological set are the most important people in politics. They remove structural weakness, and reinforce what makes them strong.

Here's the cartoon (and the well-written essay below it):
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/index.php/2012/11/15/the-gops-purity-problem/


So here's to you Mrs. Robinson. People love you more- oh, nevermind.
 
View user's profileSend private message
Display posts from previous:      
Reply to topic

 
 Jump to: