Santorum backs nullifying existing gay marriages

[cybrsage]

Then according to your...definition of "accept" in this context, the anti-abortion crowd "accepts" abortions because abortion is legal, and therefore their acceptatance is ipso-facto forced.

You are starting to use your brain. Very good beginning. Do continue, I think you may be understanding.

Now let's think about this: How many pro-lifers would say they accept abortion?

Irrelevant. They most likely would use a different defintion of the term, like you did before you started to wise up and started to realize many words have more than one meaning. Hint, it is why there are numbers underneath the words in the dictionary...

What's even more absurd, your examples above use "accept" without an object - "I accept that . . . ." Yet you claim that this proves that the forms of "accept" that take an object ("accept same-sex marriage") mean the same thing as the form of "accept" you use above that doesn't take an object.

Untrue, you grasp of English is simply too poor to understand the phrases in use.

If you want to refer to what laws can "force" people to do, then use the word "tolerate," not "accept." "Accept" is far too overloaded with definitions that involve approval and "coming to terms with" to be limited to mean only "tolerate." So if you want to be specific, then you can say that laws can force people to TOLERATE something that they would otherwise NOT tolerate.

Tolerate works as well as accept. These same laws also force people to accept something that they would otherwise not accept.

Oh, and by the way, please take a good course in English. Learn what words mean and learn about grammar. Until then, don't even try to make arguments based on the meanings of words. You're essentially illiterate, but your vocabulary is so limited you don't realize it.

Sure thing:

ac·cept

   /ækˈsɛpt/ Show Spelled[ak-sept] Show IPA
verb (used with object)

2. to agree or consent to; accede to: to accept a treaty; to accept an apology.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accept?s=t

It must really suck to be you. Making a habit out of trying to act intelligent but failing. Maybe you take pleasure in it. You should always take pleasure in something you are good at, and failure is your forte.

 

[Screech]

"Just because public opinion says something doesn't mean it's right," he said in the NBC interview. "I'm sure there were times in areas of this country when people said blacks were less than human."

I find it psychologically fascinating that someone can understand the point about black people at one point not having equal rights and then decide, 'ok, better not let gay people marry!' and not see the irony in that they are (once again) on the wrong side of history.

 

[Craig234]

The government uses the tax law to encourage investing.
Do you believe people would no longer invest if the tax code didn't promote it?

To answer your question.
No, laws governing marriage have no impact on reproduction. The societal purpose of the laws is to contribute to producing a stable household environment (the purpose of that environment to foster child rearing). Not to directly influence reproduction rates.
There are other policies in place to manage reproduction rates within society.

That's an inaccurate, overly narrow definition of marriage.

'Police exist to enforce traffic laws, making the roads safer'.

Well, no, that's not all they're for. And 'creating a stable environment for raising children' - something gay couples do too, by the way - isn't the only thing marriage is for.

 

[Craig234]

I actually agree that gay marriage needs to be a federal issue, mostly because of income taxes (and federal items such as SS survivor benefits). If you live in a state that recognizes gay marriage, you get to file your state taxes as married, but not your federal. I think we need a federal recognition of gay marriage that states must abide by. Just makes everything simpler to have a federal decision, especially with an issue that is essentially "civil rights."

Your position is based on a rational approach.

The politics of the issue where bigotry is a strong influencer are not.

Today, anyone who is for slavery can't get elected governor of Mississippi.

200 year ago, anyone who was against slavery couldn't get elected to that position.

Welcome to the modern issue of civil rights versus bigotry.

 

[davmat787]

I am so sick of this issue, get with the times Republican's and quit whoring yourselves to the evangelicals for votes. Try and be more mainstream FFS, at least socially moderate and a return to fiscal conservatism. I think there is a huge amount of voters that would normally vote Republican but are increasingly losing interest due to these stupid social wedge issues. Gay marriage/civil unions WILL happen, hell it already is. Maybe they just want to go down with the ship. Idiots.

I don't identify with the gay lifestyle at all, I don't get it. But, I don't need to either. My feelings are not paramount to someone elses right to happiness and liberty. A true conservative would not want the government dictating marriage anyway.

/rantoff

Someone else mentioned we need a third party that is socially moderate to liberal, and fiscally conservative. There has to be a huge amount of voters in between the D's and R's that would readily identify with this new party.

 

[Craig234]

I am so sick of this issue, get with the times Republican's and quit whoring yourselves to the evangelicals for votes. Try and be more mainstream FFS, at least socially moderate and a return to fiscal conservatism. I think there is a huge amount of voters that would normally vote Republican but are increasingly losing interest due to these stupid social wedge issues. Gay marriage/civil unions WILL happen, hell it already is. Maybe they just want to go down with the ship. Idiots.

I don't identify with the gay lifestyle at all, I don't get it. But, I don't need to either. My feelings are not paramount to someone elses right to happiness and liberty. A true conservative would not want the government dictating marriage anyway.

/rantoff

Someone else mentioned we need a third party that is socially moderate to liberal, and fiscally conservative. There has to be a huge amount of voters in between the D's and R's that would readily identify with this new party.

Your post is based on wanting votes, not any morals. That's too bad.

It's too bad you don't 'get' homosexuality, but you should try to learn.

Imagine if your position on slavery was 'you don't get why people think there's anything wrong with it, but you're tired of losing elections over it'.

Learning why it's wrong is good for you. And by the way, that's the same thing needed to get what you want, fewer voters pushing politicians to take the position you don't want.

Your 'fiscally conservative' is simplistic. There are all kinds of good government spending; if you don't realize that, you're wrong and ideological - and ignorant about that.

If you are asking for 'fiscally conservative' in a more general spirit, that's better, but note the progressives have the budget planned to balance the budget faster than any other.

Oh, you are against that just because you are on another team? Listen to yourself then when you criticize what you're doing.

As long as a party is able to run by TALKING fiscal conservatism and getting the BENEFITS of large corrupt deficits used for their donors, your request for a 'socially left, fiscally conservative' party won't get anywhere. Not as along as public opinion is dominated by marketing, which costs money, which is only available from 'special interests'. How is Buddy Roehmer who is closer to what you ask for doing in the primary?

 

[davmat787]

Your post is based on wanting votes, not any morals. That's too bad.

It's too bad you don't 'get' homosexuality, but you should try to learn.

Either you completely misunderstood my post, inferred incorrectly based on assumptions, or I worded it incorrectly. Maybe some of each.

My post is not on wanting votes for any party I belong too, as I don't have any allegiance with any party. I am speaking from a Republican party strategic point of view, as I think their making so much noise about these wedge social issues could ultimately be their undoing, turning them into a fringe party strictly for the religious right. Where do all the non religious folk who traditionally vote R go? I know many on the left think all R's are strictly homophobic fundamentalists, but that is not how I see it.

And why is it too bad I don't get homosexuality? I am hetero, what is their to get? I would not expect someone who is gay to understand heteros. I thought our sexual orientation is something instinctual, something so base that we are born with it? Do you need to 'get' Catholicism or Mormonism to understand they have a right to life, liberty, and happiness? You took this comment as a slight or perhaps an insult, and it is nothing of the sort.

And fiscally conservative to me means responsible spending, not gutting all sorts of programs as you imply.

Did not read past that, maybe later if you care to rethink or try to understand differently what I am getting at.

Get off your high horse, you seem to read the most negative possible meanings into my comments, always looking for a way to work in a slight. Your posting style and negative presumptuous comments do not lend to a positive back and forth discussion, not that we need to agree on our points of view, but try to understand each others points of view.

Perhaps instead of always assuming the worst, the most negative, ask for clarification?

You didn't even touch on the overall spirit of my post, that the R's are making idiots of themselves, and gay marriage will and should happen, something I would think we would agree on. But no, you have to assume the worst and get all preachy.

 

[Kadarin]

Santorum is the moral equivalent of Ayatollah Khameini, an enemy of Western values and the very idea of freedom. He deserves a shotgun blast to the face if he ever tries to enforce his disgusting view of reality on any unwilling victim.

 

[Veliko]

I find it utterly baffling that there are straight people who feel so strongly about not letting gay people get married.

It makes no sense at all. It doesn't affect them in the slightest.

 

[nonlnear]

Sanotrum is right about one point: Having states define marriage can't work - at least not when there are substantial differences in the fundamental structure. It's one thing to have legal procedures vary, and documentation requirements differ, but fundamental differences between marriage defintions across state lines can't last long. It is politically unsustainable.

Of course he is wrong about how best to resolve the problem...

 

[sportage]

A little off topic...
Lately I find it amazing how suddenly so many of my hard core republican friends are having big issues with so many republican talking points.
Like they never expected THIS to happen?
I told u all many times. A little is never enough for these rat holes.
Gay marriage hatred #1, but then its women rights, then its your religion, then its your color of car choice, then its how you mow your lawn, raise your kids, TV services you subscribe to, how you school your kids, if both parents work, how you dress, how you dress your kids, the breed of your dog, do you even have a dog?
Don't expect any of them, ESPECIALLY someone like Santorum, to stop after just one issue. Like eating potato chips, they just can't (won't) stop.
Because...
IT NEVER STOPS !!!!!!!!!!!!!
One day they will come a-knockin at YOUR door with some issue against YOU that they believe needs a-fixin via the very government that they proclaim to hate so much.
You know... That Hitler-ish solution.

 

[sportage]

BTW... I back nullifying ass-holes wearing sweater vests.

 

[zsdersw]

So you agree that accepting a law does not require one to like that law? That is what it appears you are saying.

I can accept that the highways in PA have speed laws set to no greater than 65MPH, but in some parts of the state where no one lives at all, it is stupid. I do not like it, though I have no choice but to accept it.

I never said accept = like, but using the term "accept" implies an opinion. It's wrong to use the term "accept" to describe something which doesn't affect you. Reality is reality, whether it's accepted or not; whether it's liked or not... so it should be called what it is: reality. Calling it anything else, like "I accept X" or "Y is accepted" implies an opinion of that reality and it also implies or suggests that you are affected even though you aren't.

 

[zsdersw]

Wouldn't the employer have to pay for HI for the gay spouse as it does for other married couples? If so, wouldn't that be considered to "affect" the employer even though they are not a party to the (gay) marriage?

If I understand correctly, part of the objective in gay marriage is to force third party recognition in contract law (e.g., rental agreements). If so, by definition 3rd parties are affected.

I'm neither arguing for or against, but if one side is forcing it's views on the other both are. Just the different sides of the same coin.

Throughout many years as a CPA I have seen any number of companies extend benefits to gay couples, such as HI etc. Now that seems to me an example of no one forcing anything. The companies took that decision themselves. And I would object to Santorum, or any other politicians, mandating that companies cannot extend benefits if they so choose.

Fern

Depends on the type of employer, wouldn't it? Different kinds of companies have different levels of freedom for one person to make this kind of decision. No matter what the kind of company, though, if someone with an objection to offering benefits to gay spouses decides to take a management position in a company that is required to offer those benefits they're responsible for putting themselves in the position of having to do what they don't want to do.

 

[zsdersw]

Saying that you're forced to "accept" something because of its legality (or illegality) even though it doesn't affect you is wrong. It implies that you're forced to agree to an impact that you don't like on other people's lives and choices. This is absurd.

In this country the only purview Person A has on the freedoms of Person B is if Person B's actions affect the freedoms of Person A.

 

[dank69]

I did not make this claim. The claim I made is that the government created a legal framework which matched the religious one and called it by the same name. This is where the problem started, for they should have never called it the same name as the already existing religious institution. They could not have forseen the future problems it would cause, so I give then a pass on it...back then, no one would have ever dreamed anyone would ever say two homosexuals in a union would be called a marriage.

What is done is done, but we can fix it by removing government from marriage altogether without losing the legal framework of the union.



No need to do so. The government forcing a change in a religious institution is already enough.



I understand the common person will still use the word marriage to refer to the union, and that is fine with me. I simply do not want the government to force a change in a religious institution...it is not its place to do so.

I also think the protections of marriage should be given to homosexuals, polygamists, and incestual unions (age and race limitations will still apply, no children and all members must be human). To do this, we must divorce the government from using the term marriage, since that term is obviously the sticking point - and for good reason to many.

Civil Unions will be the legal framework. If a religion allows gay marriage, then the couple can be married there and also have their legal civil union. Everyone wins.

Why can't we keep the word marriage and then religions can define their specific marriage conditions? For example, Christians can define what qualifies as a Christian marriage and won't be forced to perform any other type of marriage. Jewish marriage, Islamic marriage and all the subsets could define their specific marriages and who qualifies for them while keeping the generic term marriage for everyone including the government.

 

[silverpig]

I think government should only issue civil unions and allow religions to keep marriage. Hetero, homo, polygamist, cross-species, whatever the people want, civil unions should be codified into law. Basically, do a find replace of marriage with civil union in the books...then make alterations as needed to create the new types of unions.

Religions can hand out marriage certificates (and also do civil unions if they meet the requirements - like they do today with marriages). The government hands out civil union contracts. A person who wants to be married can do so (and then be both married and in a civil union).

Basically, fully divorce the government from marriage altogether. Then make it a federal rule, so civil unions are portable across state lines.

I see no reason not to create the new rights for new types of civil unions, but I also see no reason for the government to continue to meddle in what is obviously a religious institution (in the US - in other countries things are likely to be different).

I typically agree in principle, but it is really just a matter of semantics as to whether you allow the government to call a civil union a marriage or not.

As same-sex marriage stands here in Canada, the government will recognize all civil unions (and we call them marriages) between two consenting adults. We don't force the Catholic church down the street to marry gays, and it's entirely in their rights to refuse to do so. That same Catholic church can refuse to marry two Jews, or two Muslims, or two atheists. Totally fine. Nothing is forced on them.

Your system is exactly like what we have here in Canada where gays are allowed to marry, with the minor detail that we actually call them marriages. Tomato, tomato.

 

[silverpig]

If everyone in some town or state wants to legalize public sex why should you, living 1000 miles away, be able to tell them no?

If the majority thinks morality means converting the country to Islam are you going to go along with it?

That's your opinion. And it's wrong.

Moral comes from the latin word meaning "popular".

A society's morals are really just a reflection of what everyone believes to be true. So yeah, pretty much all of our laws are morality based.

 

[pauldun170]

That's an inaccurate, overly narrow definition of marriage.

'Police exist to enforce traffic laws, making the roads safer'.

Well, no, that's not all they're for. And 'creating a stable environment for raising children' - something gay couples do too, by the way - isn't the only thing marriage is for.

I wasn't defining marriage so not sure where your coming from.

"Isn't the only thing marriage is for."
Within the context of societal benefit, what are the other things marriage is good for?
Thats not a "challenge...lets argue back and forth" question.
Its just a "did you mean to finish typing out your thought?" kinda of question.

edit: I'm guessing you didn't read my earlier post.

 

[zsdersw]

I wasn't defining marriage so not sure where your coming from.

"Isn't the only thing marriage is for."
Within the context of societal benefit, what are the other things marriage is good for?
Thats not a "challenge...lets argue back and forth" question.
Its just a "did you mean to finish typing out your thought?" kinda of question.

If government is to be in the position of recognizing and incentivizing arrangements that are beneficial to society, it should recognize and incentivize all arrangements that are beneficial, not just heterosexual ones. Monogamous and committed homosexual relationships are beneficial to society: lower risk and spread of STDs, higher productivity, and lower crime are a few of the benefits that come to mind.

 

[cybrsage]

Saying that you're forced to "accept" something because of its legality (or illegality) even though it doesn't affect you is wrong. It implies that you're forced to agree to an impact that you don't like on other people's lives and choices. This is absurd.

In this country the only purview Person A has on the freedoms of Person B is if Person B's actions affect the freedoms of Person A.

We already covered that companies, which are made up of Persons, are forced to accept laws regardless of their like or dislike of said laws.

Pretending companies do not have to accept laws is silly.

 

[cybrsage]

I typically agree in principle, but it is really just a matter of semantics as to whether you allow the government to call a civil union a marriage or not.

As same-sex marriage stands here in Canada, the government will recognize all civil unions (and we call them marriages) between two consenting adults. We don't force the Catholic church down the street to marry gays, and it's entirely in their rights to refuse to do so. That same Catholic church can refuse to marry two Jews, or two Muslims, or two atheists. Totally fine. Nothing is forced on them.

Your system is exactly like what we have here in Canada where gays are allowed to marry, with the minor detail that we actually call them marriages. Tomato, tomato.

And really, it is that simple. The common person will still call civil unions marriages, but as long as the government does not, the issue will die down and go away. The problem is with religous freedom in the US vs Government intrusion into it. Since marriage was a religious institution in the US prior to the government creating a legal framework which mirrored it and then named it the same, we have a problem.

The easy and smart fix is to simply rename the legal framework of marriage as civil union. New civil unions can be created at will without any of the problems of redefining a word which was first used in religion (in the US). Everyone wins except those who demand the use of the word marriage in legal forms - but they are simply wanting to cause hate and outrage and should be ignored.

 

[cybrsage]

Why can't we keep the word marriage and then religions can define their specific marriage conditions? For example, Christians can define what qualifies as a Christian marriage and won't be forced to perform any other type of marriage. Jewish marriage, Islamic marriage and all the subsets could define their specific marriages and who qualifies for them while keeping the generic term marriage for everyone including the government.

I see your point, but that would require a rewriting of religious books (such as the Quran, the Tanakh, etc), which cannot happen. If it could, that would also be a viable option, though more difficult due to the number of places where changes would need to be made. If the fed gov was given control of marriage and then changed it to civil union, the change would be quick and easy (comparitively), and would also allow the unions (which the common person would still call marriage anyway) to be portable across state lines.

 

[cybrsage]

If government is to be in the position of recognizing and incentivizing arrangements that are beneficial to society, it should recognize and incentivize all arrangements that are beneficial, not just heterosexual ones. Monogamous and committed homosexual relationships are beneficial to society: lower risk and spread of STDs, higher productivity, and lower crime are a few of the benefits that come to mind.

I agree.

From a moral standpoint, I am against homosexual acts (of which homosexual unions will undoubtedly encourage). From a legal standpoint, I see no reason to prevent the creatoin of new civil unions to provide the same benefits to alternative lifestyles as is currently given to the traditional lifestyle. That is one of the reasons why I want to seperate government from marriage. The other is that is divorces (I love using that term in these discussions ) the emotional component which is currently muddying the field.

 

[dank69]

I see your point, but that would require a rewriting of religious books (such as the Quran, the Tanakh, etc), which cannot happen. If it could, that would also be a viable option, though more difficult due to the number of places where changes would need to be made. If the fed gov was given control of marriage and then changed it to civil union, the change would be quick and easy (comparitively), and would also allow the unions (which the common person would still call marriage anyway) to be portable across state lines.

Why would religious texts need to be rewritten?