Redzone: Michael Irvin takes stand for marriage equality

[zrinkill]

No political or religious commentary.


Only warning...

You gave me permission years ago to always discuss
Xenu

 

[ScipioCowboy]

But I have to leave the reason for my disapproval "at that." Others can comment how great it is that Irvin is being tolerant and standing up for what is right.

Therein lies the difference. I'm not trying to start an argument. I understand the world in which I live. But let's not kid ourselves that those who celebrate Irvin's decision and give why are going to be seen as divisive ("political") as those who aren't as "tolerant."

We're better than tolerant. We're long-suffering.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

in risk of being reprimanded, I will just say that government should only see people as individuals.

marriage is a group. government should never view people as groups, so government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

We're better than tolerant. We're long-suffering.

How exactly are you suffering?

 

[CoCo]

But I have to leave the reason for my disapproval "at that." Others can comment how great it is that Irvin is being tolerant and standing up for what is right.

Therein lies the difference. I'm not trying to start an argument. I understand the world in which I live. But let's not kid ourselves that those who celebrate Irvin's decision and give why are going to be seen as divisive ("political") as those who aren't as "tolerant."

While I might agree with your 2nd paragraph I don't think anyone here pro or con has been given more latitude than the other. Obviously whether you're pro or con you believe your position to be the correct one. That is really all that anyone has said.

For me, while I believe the marriage union is man & wife, I don't necessarily oppose granting "family benefits" using a broader definition. Not sure I support favoring traditional versus non when it comes to tax status etc. This is a tough issue for me. One I'm still wrestling with.

I'll say too that I respect Irvin's courage to put himself out there on this issue even if I don't agree with him.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

How exactly are you suffering?

Long-suffering. Not suffering. It simply means to endure trouble or provocation patiently.

 

[CoCo]

in risk of being reprimanded, I will just say that government should only see people as individuals.

marriage is a group. government should never view people as groups, so government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage.

This is kind of at the center of my wrestle though I'm hesitant to use the term "never."

 

[ScipioCowboy]

While I might agree with your 2nd paragraph I don't think anyone here pro or con has been given more latitude than the other. Obviously whether you're pro or con you believe your position to be the correct one. That is really all that anyone has said.

For me, while I believe the marriage union is man & wife, I don't necessarily oppose granting "family benefits" using a broader definition. Not sure I support favoring traditional versus non when it comes to tax status etc. This is a tough issue for me. One I'm still wrestling with.

I'll say too that I respect Irvin's courage to put himself out there on this issue even if I don't agree with him.

I'll summarize my position in the most succinct and least provocative way possible: Government should remove itself from the marriage business. There should be no legal recognition of any marital union--traditional, same-sex, group, polygamous, etc.

 

[ethiostar]

But I have to leave the reason for my disapproval "at that." Others can comment how great it is that Irvin is being tolerant and standing up for what is right.

Therein lies the difference. I'm not trying to start an argument. I understand the world in which I live. But let's not kid ourselves that those who celebrate Irvin's decision and give why are going to be seen as divisive ("political") as those who aren't as "tolerant."

I'm not seeing this at all. I just went through all the posts and saw maybe one poster who 'elaborated' a little bit on why he thinks what Michael did was a good thing.

EDIT: Never mind, someone already beat me to it.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

Long-suffering. Not suffering. It simply means to endure trouble or provocation patiently.

What trouble are you enduring?

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

His stock is going up

Meanwhile Deion is busy thinking up excuses for Pacman

 

[ScipioCowboy]

What trouble are you enduring?

Tyke was sharing his concerns and troubles. My long-suffering comment was in response to that.

 

[CoCo]

I'll summarize my position in the most succinct and least provocative way possible: Government should remove itself from the marriage business. There should be no legal recognition of any marital union--traditional, same-sex, group, polygamous, etc.

That's the way I'm leaning. But I am open to consideration of dissenting opinion that is well thought out.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'll summarize my position in the most succinct and least provocative way possible: Government should remove itself from the marriage business. There should be no legal recognition of any marital union--traditional, same-sex, group, polygamous, etc.

Well, I think the government should recognize only traditional man-woman relationship as marriage because it best reflects the unit singularly responsible for procreation and the survival of the species. That and the fact that every civilization known to humanity has the man-woman relationship as the foundation of its marriage ordinances.

 

[Kevinicus]

in risk of being reprimanded, I will just say that government should only see people as individuals.

marriage is a group. government should never view people as groups, so government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage.

Agreed. And anyone, anywhere can get married. Having the state sanction/sponsor/recognize that marriage is another issue altogether. But as far as the relationship aspect is concerned, I don't see why that would matter.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

Well, I think the government should recognize only traditional man-woman relationship as marriage because it best reflects the unit singularly responsible for procreation and the survival of the species. That and the fact that every civilization known to humanity has the man-woman relationship as the foundation of its marriage ordinances.

I don’t think the human species is in danger of extinction due to gay marriages. Plus they can adopt children that do not have homes. Also, what if a man and woman are unable to have children, then should they not be allowed to marry as well?

 

[tyke1doe]

I don’t think the human species is in danger of extinction due to gay marriages. Plus they can adopt children that do not have homes. Also, what if a man and woman are unable to have children, then should they not be allowed to marry as well?

Who said anything about the human species in danger of extinction?

I think I said the reason cultures recognize the man-woman relationship as the basis of marriage is because it reflects the union that produces procreation and ensures the survival of the species. It represents something very unique and special as it relates to the very survival of our species. And that it is why, IMO, it has been recognized as the unit that comprises marriage.

With respect to your second question, I'll basically say this: As a cultural institution, without procreation and children, there really is no need for the marriage institution. A heterosexual relationship would be a mere legal arrangement, which would and could apply to any coupling relationship. And that gets to the argument advanced here that the government should get out of the marriage business. If the government gets out of the marriage business, there would be no need for marriage. That comes full circle to my point.

 

[Idgit]

So. Hot. AmIRite? Can we get a poll?

 

[Everlastingxxx]

Who said anything about the human species in danger of extinction?

I think I said the reason cultures recognize the man-woman relationship as the basis of marriage is because it reflects the union that produces procreation and ensures the survival of the species. It represents something very unique and special as it relates to the very survival of our species. And that it is why, IMO, it has been recognized as the unit that comprises marriage.

So what? What does that have to do with gays being able to get married today?

With respect to your second question, I'll basically say this: As a cultural institution, without procreation and children, there really is no need for the marriage institution.

That is not true. There are a number of reasons why people get married.

A heterosexual relationship would be a mere legal arrangement, which would and could apply to any coupling relationship. And that gets to the argument advanced here that the government should get out of the marriage business. If the government gets out of the marriage business, there would be no need for marriage. That comes full circle to my point.

The government provides many benefits to married couples.

 

[Hoofbite]

That's the way I'm leaning. But I am open to consideration of dissenting opinion that is well thought out.

Doesn't exist regarding this topic.

I've yet to hear a valid claim to support allowing certain segments of the population more freedom than others.