Why are Liberals not Liberal-minded?

Beefy said:
Split hairs all you want. Pussy.
Click to expand...

Seriously.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberal[/ame]

You are not a social liberal. You are influenced by classical liberalism. But in truth classical liberalism wasn't the same thing as modern libertarianism. And neither classical or social liberals have any control at all over modern policy. For every classical liberal republican there's twenty social conservatives, and for every social liberal democrat there's twenty populists and "for your own good" social democrats.
 
But I have a question for you. If a man and a woman want to join together, but neither of them wants the religious connotations (they are going to the courthouse, going to be married by a JP ect) will they be in a marriage or a civil union?
Click to expand...

My personal viewpoint is, from a legal perspective, any marriage is a civil union. Back on point, I am the one with the "liberal-minded" thinking here. I suggest we do away with state sanctioning of "marriage" all together, and replace it with "civil union" licensing, if anything. Religious people can still maintain the sanctity of traditional marriage, it can still be a religiously respected establishment, and gay people can have the same exact rights of any traditionally married couple. This solution would make everyone happy except radical extremists and puritans. But this isn't acceptable to the closed-minded non-liberal-thinking liberals, they won't be satisfied until they ram their ideology down our throats against our will. Until then, they will call people like me, intolerant bigots, homophobes, and knuckle-draggers! Who is being "Liberal-minded" and who is not?
 
Dixie said:
My personal viewpoint is, from a legal perspective, any marriage is a civil union. Back on point, I am the one with the "liberal-minded" thinking here. I suggest we do away with state sanctioning of "marriage" all together, and replace it with "civil union" licensing, if anything. Religious people can still maintain the sanctity of traditional marriage, it can still be a religiously respected establishment, and gay people can have the same exact rights of any traditionally married couple. This solution would make everyone happy except radical extremists and puritans. But this isn't acceptable to the closed-minded non-liberal-thinking liberals, they won't be satisfied until they ram their ideology down our throats against our will. Until then, they will call people like me, intolerant bigots, homophobes, and knuckle-draggers! Who is being "Liberal-minded" and who is not?
Click to expand...

I think it would be fuckin-a for marriage to finally be abolished.
 
Abolishing marriage? Isn't that like abolishing love or spirituality? How do you non-liberal-minded thinkers propose we go about this? Brainwashing? Hanging of people who marry?

I am talking about the practice of having the state issue a license for marriage. I think this should be eliminated or replaced with 'civil union' licensing. I have enough respect for other viewpoints, not to go as far as you have and advocate abolition of marriage. But again, you help to illustrate the point of this thread in ways I never could have done without you! Brilliant!
 
Dixie said:
Abolishing marriage? Isn't that like abolishing love or spirituality? How do you non-liberal-minded thinkers propose we go about this? Brainwashing? Hanging of people who marry?

I am talking about the practice of having the state issue a license for marriage. I think this should be eliminated or replaced with 'civil union' licensing. I have enough respect for other viewpoints, not to go as far as you have and advocate abolition of marriage. But again, you help to illustrate the point of this thread in ways I never could have done without you! Brilliant!
Click to expand...
They mean abolishing civil marriage, and it would solve all of the problems. First, it would point out that marriage is a religious institution, and therefore spiritual and special, and simply forcing that wall of separation that people like to tout to take effect. It would kill the movement for same-sex marriage because it would be illegal as well.

People could apply for civil unions to deal with ownership, monetary, custody, visitng, and other issues. It would greatly people from getting married who should not be.
 
Dixie said:
You can laugh all you like, what I said is valid. Traditional marriage is sanctified because it is the mechanism by which a man and woman join in matrimony in order to procreate a family. Your examples of bad marriages is notwithstanding here, it's like saying... we have women in thongs and men in speedo's all over the beach, why not allow public nudity? We have women getting raped and children molested all the time, why not allow public masturbation? You are finding faults in values to justify destruction of values.

Let's be clear about this, while we are on the subject... Gays most certainly can "marry" ...I know, I went to a Gay Marriage in 1987! The couple are still together, still have their wedding album and honeymoon pictures! They were married by a Rastafarian priest on a mountainside in Alabama. No one stopped them, they weren't arrested. They have gone to great legal lengths to essentially establish a 'civil union' between them, with regard to various aspects of property, etc. So, this can be done, nothing prevents it now.

The argument is over changing the definition of a fundamental foundational principle of social conservative values, rooted in religious sanctity. Civil Unions legislation would give gay couples every single "married" right they desire, without disturbing the foundational fundamental principle of traditional marriage. Why is this not acceptable to Liberals? Simply put, because it doesn't attack and destroy a religiously respected establishment in society.
Click to expand...

And if this couple you claim were in a civil union have the same rights....

Can one of them make medical decisions for the other, if that other is unable? Especially if the other member's family objects?

Can they file taxes together, as married people can?

Can they adopt a child together? With BOTH listed as the adoptive parents?

Can one of these be forced to testify against the other in a court of law?

Can one of these claim the estate of the other in case there is no will?

Can these two get family health coverage?




Unless laws have changed in the last few months, your answer would be "No" to all these questions.

And yet, I took a woman to the Shelby County courthouse and got all those rights granted or guaranteed by our government.





And no matter what you whine about, allowing two people with the same genitals to marry will not change your marriage one iota.
 
Sol, can any of the list of things you posted, not be enabled for gay couples through civil union legislation? Your answer is "NO!" Which is MY point! It is completely unnecessary to redefine marriage, infringe on the respect for religious sanctity of traditional marriage, or attack conservative principles and social family values. Those are the ONLY justifiable reasons for persisting with this "movement" to "allow gay marriage." Again, which one of us is being more "liberal-minded" regarding this issue? I am considering both sides, all sides, as a matter of fact...and you are considering ONE side, and ONE side only, and you vehemently refuse to budge. You aren't being "liberal-minded" at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top