MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Lighthouse 84 on October 24, 2017, 01:19:47 PM
-
If this was a story about a university that isn't a Catholic or religious university, that would be one thing. But a position that is in line with that of the Catholic Church should be acceptable at a Catholic university. It makes me wonder, if another religious university (Muslim, Mormon, etc.) had a student group that openly advocated their views on marriage, which were in line with their religion but not necessarily in line with the LGBTQ community, would that group also be labeled a hate group?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/24/georgetown-student-group-targeted-as-hate-group-for-catholic-beliefs-could-be-sanctioned.html
-
If this was a story about a university that isn't a Catholic or religious university, that would be one thing. But a position that is in line with that of the Catholic Church should be acceptable at a Catholic university. It makes me wonder, if another religious university (Muslim, Mormon, etc.) had a student group that openly advocated their views on marriage, which were in line with their religion but not necessarily in line with the LGBTQ community, would that group also be labeled a hate group?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/24/georgetown-student-group-targeted-as-hate-group-for-catholic-beliefs-could-be-sanctioned.html
Really just depends on whether they are standing up for religious marriage or the government benefit we call marriage. Religious marriage should be no issue whatsoever. If they are advocating that the government be able to limit "marriage" based on gender, sex, race, et al then they are in the wrong.
-
Really just depends on whether they are standing up for religious marriage or the government benefit we call marriage. Religious marriage should be no issue whatsoever. If they are advocating that the government be able to limit "marriage" based on gender, sex, race, et al then they are in the wrong.
I agree with that. Though from the article, it appears to be a religious rather than a government based belief.
-
http://www.newsweek.com/did-satan-create-catholicism-trump-supporting-pastor-robert-jeffress-thinks-so-690176
They should let this guy speak.
-
http://www.newsweek.com/did-satan-create-catholicism-trump-supporting-pastor-robert-jeffress-thinks-so-690176
They should let this guy speak.
Yes and ironies or ironies is that if Catholicism is born of Satan that the Baptist faith would be born of the same tree, correct?
-
I agree with that. Though from the article, it appears to be a religious rather than a government based belief.
Article is ambiguous on that and likely intentionally so.
-
Oops wrong topic.
-
http://www.newsweek.com/did-satan-create-catholicism-trump-supporting-pastor-robert-jeffress-thinks-so-690176
They should let this guy speak.
And yet "christians" wonder why people are leaving churches in droves.
Could be Kaepernik's fault.
-
Really just depends on whether they are standing up for religious marriage or the government benefit we call marriage. Religious marriage should be no issue whatsoever. If they are advocating that the government be able to limit "marriage" based on gender, sex, race, et al then they are in the wrong.
Well did not the LGBTQ community say the government was wrong denying them marriage rights and no one labeled them a hate group because they were intolerant of someones religious beliefs. So why would a group be labeled a hate group because they disagree with the courts redefining the meaning of marriage based on their religious beliefs. The LGBTQ community just wants to silence this group plane and simple.
-
If this was a story about a university that isn't a Catholic or religious university, that would be one thing. But a position that is in line with that of the Catholic Church should be acceptable at a Catholic university. It makes me wonder, if another religious university (Muslim, Mormon, etc.) had a student group that openly advocated their views on marriage, which were in line with their religion but not necessarily in line with the LGBTQ community, would that group also be labeled a hate group?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/24/georgetown-student-group-targeted-as-hate-group-for-catholic-beliefs-could-be-sanctioned.html
Did you even read the article closely? Georgetown has not labeled this organization a hate group - one student senator did and got a couple of mopes on the student newspaper's editorial board to agree with him. To quote the article, "The university released a statement that did not appear take sides".
In other words, one student is honked off - and the university has yet to give his gripe the due process that is required.
-
Well did not the LGBTQ community say the government was wrong denying them marriage rights and no one labeled them a hate group because they were intolerant of someones religious beliefs. So why would a group be labeled a hate group because they disagree with the courts redefining the meaning of marriage based on their religious beliefs. The LGBTQ community just wants to silence this group plane and simple.
A government marriage is not the same thing as a religious marriage, therefore objecting to a government marriage on religious grounds has no merit or protection under the constitution.
Let's call a government marriage as "shelter" and religious marriage as "ceremony". The government can't pick who gets to partake in shelter based on any religious beliefs no more than they can limit or alter the definition/participation in ceremony. Love Saxa can object to the definition of ceremony but they may only object to shelter on legal grounds (not emotional/religious grounds). LGBTQ can object to the definition of ceremony but not via legal means, they can only object to Love Saxa's position on shelter via legal means (not emotional/religious grounds).
-
Did you even read the article closely? Georgetown has not labeled this organization a hate group - one student senator did and got a couple of mopes on the student newspaper's editorial board to agree with him. To quote the article, "The university released a statement that did not appear take sides".
In other words, one student is honked off - and the university has yet to give his gripe the due process that is required.
Yes Chick, I read the article, obviously more closely than you read my post. Where did I say Georgetown labeled the organization a hate group? Some from the LGBTQ community labeled the group as a hate group. My questions were aimed at whether the LGBTQ community at an "other than Catholic university" would do the same when it came to a different religion's beliefs about marriage.
-
Keep in mind that only 44% of Georgetown students self-identify as Catholic. That means despite what the University's official position is, you have the great potential for the majority of students to disagree with a particular aspect of Catholic Doctrine.
Don't forget that Sandra Fluke was a Georgetown student.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Fluke
-
Well did not the LGBTQ community say the government was wrong denying them marriage rights and no one labeled them a hate group because they were intolerant of someones religious beliefs. So why would a group be labeled a hate group because they disagree with the courts redefining the meaning of marriage based on their religious beliefs. The LGBTQ community just wants to silence this group plane and simple.
Has the LGBTQ community demanded that churches opposed to gay marriage conduct such marriages anyway?
No. So you have made a false equivalence.
-
Keep in mind that only 44% of Georgetown students self-identify as Catholic. That means despite what the University's official position is, you have the great potential for the majority of students to disagree with a particular aspect of Catholic Doctrine.
Don't forget that Sandra Fluke was a Georgetown student.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Fluke
A sizeable majority of Catholics disagree with that particular Catholic doctrine as well. And, I would guess, that the younger the Catholic, the more likely they are to disagree.
-
Well did not the LGBTQ community say the government was wrong denying them marriage rights and no one labeled them a hate group because they were intolerant of someones religious beliefs. So why would a group be labeled a hate group because they disagree with the courts redefining the meaning of marriage based on their religious beliefs. The LGBTQ community just wants to silence this group plane and simple.
Loony Town.
-
Yes Chick, I read the article, obviously more closely than you read my post. Where did I say Georgetown labeled the organization a hate group? Some from the LGBTQ community labeled the group as a hate group. My questions were aimed at whether the LGBTQ community at an "other than Catholic university" would do the same when it came to a different religion's beliefs about marriage.
You used the passive voice - "would that group also be labeled a hate group?" and did not specifically mention any other organization or person other than the University that was referenced in the article, so I don't think it was a stretch for me to assume that you were talking about Georgetown.
But thank you for the clarification.
-
You used the passive voice - "would that group also be labeled a hate group?" and did not specifically mention any other organization or person other than the University that was referenced in the article, so I don't think it was a stretch for me to assume that you were talking about Georgetown.
But thank you for the clarification.
Nada.
-
A government marriage is not the same thing as a religious marriage, therefore objecting to a government marriage on religious grounds has no merit or protection under the constitution.
Let's call a government marriage as "shelter" and religious marriage as "ceremony". The government can't pick who gets to partake in shelter based on any religious beliefs no more than they can limit or alter the definition/participation in ceremony. Love Saxa can object to the definition of ceremony but they may only object to shelter on legal grounds (not emotional/religious grounds). LGBTQ can object to the definition of ceremony but not via legal means, they can only object to Love Saxa's position on shelter via legal means (not emotional/religious grounds).
WAY more civil, and much more articulate, than i would have responded. Nicely stated.
Loony Town.
Still more civil than i would have responded......but we're getting closer.
-
A government marriage is not the same thing as a religious marriage, therefore objecting to a government marriage on religious grounds has no merit or protection under the constitution.
Let's call a government marriage as "shelter" and religious marriage as "ceremony". The government can't pick who gets to partake in shelter based on any religious beliefs no more than they can limit or alter the definition/participation in ceremony. Love Saxa can object to the definition of ceremony but they may only object to shelter on legal grounds (not emotional/religious grounds). LGBTQ can object to the definition of ceremony but not via legal means, they can only object to Love Saxa's position on shelter via legal means (not emotional/religious grounds).
Proponents of traditional marriage oppose same-sex marriage not because they hate gays or want to deny them human dignity; they do so because they believe marriage is not a social construct, but a reality based in the order of nature which cannot be redefined. What I find remarkable is that the LGTQ community cannot even tolerate that position and label Love Saxa a Hate Group for espousing Catholic teaching at a Catholic University. Even Pope Francis, the top Jesuit whom I assume espouses Jesuit values warns that same-sex marriage 'threatens the family' and 'disfigures God's
plan for creation'.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/pope-francis-warns-that-same-sex-marriage-threatens-the-family-and-disfigures-gods-plan-for-creation-9986028.html
-
Proponents of traditional marriage oppose same-sex marriage not because they hate gays or want to deny them human dignity; they do so because they believe marriage is not a social construct, but a reality based in the order of nature which cannot be redefined. What I find remarkable is that the LGTQ community cannot even tolerate that position and label Love Saxa a Hate Group for espousing Catholic teaching at a Catholic University. Even Pope Francis, the top Jesuit whom I assume espouses Jesuit values warns that same-sex marriage 'threatens the family' and 'disfigures God's
plan for creation'.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/pope-francis-warns-that-same-sex-marriage-threatens-the-family-and-disfigures-gods-plan-for-creation-9986028.html
Are they labeling them a "hate group" for espousing Catholic teaching, or are they labeling them a hate group for trying to impose Catholic teaching on others?
They can espouse the belief all they want. But when they want to foist that belief on others via government, it's more than just espousing a belief.
The essay from the member of the organization is pretty ambiguous on that question, but there's certainly room for interpretation to think they're advocating against legalization of same-sex marriage.
Love Saxa’s definition of marriage does not include same-sex couples, as we believe that marriage is a conjugal union on every level – emotional, spiritual, physical and mental – directed toward caring for biological children. To us, marriage is much more than commitment of love between two consenting adults.
http://www.thehoya.com/viewpoint-confessions-college-virgin/
-
Just because something is a religious belief doesn't mean it's not also hateful. Religious beliefs from every creed have been used to justify acts of hate throughout history. In this case, believing that marriage is between a man and woman is a religious belief that many hold (and a right that should be defended to the death), but whatever the intent, it sends the hateful message that LGBTQ individuals are less than, illegitimate, or even worse than that. Now does that warrant labeling a group a "hate group"? I would say no. Just like people aren't only defined by their sins, I would say groups are not defined by the worst message that they support. I'm not familiar with this particular group. If they are a Christian based group and this is one of their many beliefs, I would say they are not a hate group. If they are a Christian based group and this is their main purpose and mission, then maybe they are a hate group.
-
A sizeable majority of Catholics disagree with that particular Catholic doctrine as well. And, I would guess, that the younger the Catholic, the more likely they are to disagree.
I agree. My point is that unlike Marquette, which is 68% Catholic, Georgetown has a big head start on people who don't "have to" agree with Catholic teachings. I wouldn't be surprised if Georgetown is the least Catholic of all the major Catholic Universities.
-
Just because something is a religious belief doesn't mean it's not also hateful. Religious beliefs from every creed have been used to justify acts of hate throughout history. In this case, believing that marriage is between a man and woman is a religious belief that many hold (and a right that should be defended to the death), but whatever the intent, it sends the hateful message that LGBTQ individuals are less than, illegitimate, or even worse than that. Now does that warrant labeling a group a "hate group"? I would say no. Just like people aren't only defined by their sins, I would say groups are not defined by the worst message that they support. I'm not familiar with this particular group. If they are a Christian based group and this is one of their many beliefs, I would say they are not a hate group. If they are a Christian based group and this is their main purpose and mission, then maybe they are a hate group.
Has this group done anything but express an opinion that aligns with the accepted tenets of a major religion? I read the article and the blog post, and I don't see anything about attacking LGBTQ people, lobbying for a change in legislation to reduce their legal rights , or otherwise engaging in hateful speech or actions.
I don't agree with what they stand for, but so far, I don't see any evidence that they are a hate group.
-
Are they labeling them a "hate group" for espousing Catholic teaching, or are they labeling them a hate group for trying to impose Catholic teaching on others?
I don't really want to get too involved here, but are they imposing Catholic teaching on people who willfully attended a Catholic University? Shouldn't that be at least a little expected? Wouldn't one be ignorant to think that they would attend a Catholic school and completely avoid Catholic teaching?
-
Has the LGBTQ community demanded that churches opposed to gay marriage conduct such marriages anyway?
No. So you have made a false equivalence.
https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/press-release-details/massachusetts-churches-file-suit-to-challenge-law-forcing-them-to-speak-act-contrary-to-their-faith
-
Proponents of traditional marriage oppose same-sex marriage not because they hate gays or want to deny them human dignity; they do so because they believe marriage is not a social construct, but a reality based in the order of nature which cannot be redefined.
That is a religious viewpoint.
However when a secular government grants rights based on marriage, denying that right to people based on sexual orientation is discriminatory.
It's not hard. Churches can claim whatever religious viewpoint on marriage and act accordingly.
-
https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/press-release-details/massachusetts-churches-file-suit-to-challenge-law-forcing-them-to-speak-act-contrary-to-their-faith
I'm sorry, where does this say that they are forcing churches to conduct gay marriages???
-
I still question whether the LGBTQ community would have as much of an issue, or at least be as vocal about it, if another religious, non-Catholic university group espoused their beliefs on marriage and they were different than the LGBTQ’s desire to have marriage include same sex. I could be wrong but I think if a group at Zaytuna College or BYU expressed their view of marriage as being traditionally Muslim or Mormon, respectively, it may not get the same play as Catholics.
-
Has this group done anything but express an opinion that aligns with the accepted tenets of a major religion? I read the article and the blog post, and I don't see anything about attacking LGBTQ people, lobbying for a change in legislation to reduce their legal rights , or otherwise engaging in hateful speech or actions.
I don't agree with what they stand for, but so far, I don't see any evidence that they are a hate group.
I would agree.
-
I still question whether the LGBTQ community would have as much of an issue, or at least be as vocal about it, if another religious, non-Catholic university group espoused their beliefs on marriage and they were different than the LGBTQ’s desire to have marriage include same sex. I could be wrong but I think if a group at Zaytuna College or BYU expressed their view of marriage as being traditionally Muslim or Mormon, respectively, it may not get the same play as Catholics.
This isn't a religious group. Their mission statement does not mention religion at all.
"In a society where dating and courtship are largely forgotten, structures of marriage and family are eroding, traditional understandings of gender complementarity are distant concepts, the use of pornography is prevalent, and sexual assault is rampant, Love Saxa exists to promote healthy relationships on campus through cultivating a proper understanding of sex, gender, marriage, and family among Georgetown students. Many Georgetown students lack a space to discuss their experiences of the harmful effects of a distorted view of human sexuality and the human person. Through programs consisting of discussions, lectures, and campaigns, we hope to increase awareness of the benefits of sexual integrity, healthy dating relationships, and the primacy of marriage (understood as a monogamous and permanent union between a man and a woman) as a central pillar of society."
-
I don't really want to get too involved here, but are they imposing Catholic teaching on people who willfully attended a Catholic University? Shouldn't that be at least a little expected? Wouldn't one be ignorant to think that they would attend a Catholic school and completely avoid Catholic teaching?
Either I'm badly misunderstanding your point or you're badly misunderstanding mine.
When I speak of them imposing Catholic teaching on others, I mean requiring others to live their lives according to Catholic doctrine ... in this instance, not having a same-sex marriage. That's a far cry from merely voicing Catholic teaching, which may be how you're reading "impose" here.
They should feel welcome to state that their faith prohibits them from engaging in same-sex relationships, including marriage. And, of course, they should live that way if that's what they believe. That's not hate speech.
But it's not their place to say their faith means nobody can have a same-sex marriage. That may not be hate speech, but it's pretty rude and sorta un-American.
-
I still question whether the LGBTQ community would have as much of an issue, or at least be as vocal about it, if another religious, non-Catholic university group espoused their beliefs on marriage and they were different than the LGBTQ’s desire to have marriage include same sex. I could be wrong but I think if a group at Zaytuna College or BYU expressed their view of marriage as being traditionally Muslim or Mormon, respectively, it may not get the same play as Catholics.
Having worked at the University of Utah, I can tell you that LGBTQ individuals don't like BYU's stance on marriage either. You won't see as many protests however because they shut down free sppech with an iron fist over in Provo. While I don't know if any has protested at a Muslim University, I have seen protests about Islam's treatment of women so their beliefs are not immune from criticism and activism. I really don't think Catholics are special in this regard. They might be the most targeted simply because they are the most powerful religion in the world.
-
This isn't a religious group. Their mission statement does not mention religion at all.
"In a society where dating and courtship are largely forgotten, structures of marriage and family are eroding, traditional understandings of gender complementarity are distant concepts, the use of pornography is prevalent, and sexual assault is rampant, Love Saxa exists to promote healthy relationships on campus through cultivating a proper understanding of sex, gender, marriage, and family among Georgetown students. Many Georgetown students lack a space to discuss their experiences of the harmful effects of a distorted view of human sexuality and the human person. Through programs consisting of discussions, lectures, and campaigns, we hope to increase awareness of the benefits of sexual integrity, healthy dating relationships, and the primacy of marriage (understood as a monogamous and permanent union between a man and a woman) as a central pillar of society."
While I don't want to judge by a cover....I would be very skeptical of what a "healthy relationship" looks like to a member of a group with this mission statement. And while I'm not ready to call them a hate group, the fact their mission statement specifically mentions that LGBT individuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, I'm getting closer to that line.
-
i believe the evolution of the term "hate group" has become the new buzz word for disagreeing with others political position. it seems to be thrown around quite randomly, like the "R" word in order to essentially try to censor or minimalize opposing groups. but what is the significance of creating such "groups" and/or calling then out as such? from what i've seen and read, and you can scratch your head, ponder, scratch your head some more and then duhhhh-follow the money. note the southern poverty law center-they wield a lot of power over what is hate. AND, they have A LOT of cash on hand. what's that all about?
how does this pertain to the discussion at hand-"hate speech at georgetown"?
well, no one wants to be labeled a "hater" and it's not due to hurt feelings or anything. it's become quite the lucrative business however. one of the best ways to understand what or who is a hater, is to identify the ones who claim to be "lovers"? the southern poverty law center for example. just by the very fact that the arbiters of who is a hate group or not issue the "label" does that not make them a hate group themselves? following the golden rule-he who has the gold, makes the rules. oh, by the way, the southern poverty law center is flush with cash.
-
Wow. Nice tangent, rs. Anyway, not that it matters, but my opinion is this. From an equal protection perspective, civil unions must be allowed. From a religious freedom perspective, you can't force the religions to recognize them or perform the ceremony. These two notions are in conflict. For me, when in doubt, I default to compassion.
-
While I don't want to judge by a cover....I would be very skeptical of what a "healthy relationship" looks like to a member of a group with this mission statement. And while I'm not ready to call them a hate group, the fact their mission statement specifically mentions that LGBT individuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, I'm getting closer to that line.
Maybe I am missing it, but where does it say that?
-
Wow. Nice tangent, rs. Anyway, not that it matters, but my opinion is this. From an equal protection perspective, civil unions must be allowed. From a religious freedom perspective, you can't force the religions to recognize them or perform the ceremony. These two notions are in conflict. For me, when in doubt, I default to compassion.
Yes sir.
-
Wow. Nice tangent, rs. Anyway, not that it matters, but my opinion is this. From an equal protection perspective, civil unions must be allowed. From a religious freedom perspective, you can't force the religions to recognize them or perform the ceremony. These two notions are in conflict. For me, when in doubt, I default to compassion.
I'm confused as to why the notions are in conflict. If we called government marriage a civil union for all couples regardless of gender, sex, or race and a religious-based recognition of the union of two souls in whatever combination a religion wants to recognize as marriage there is no conflict whatsoever. Government marriage is a social construct that grew out of the religious concept but is now a completely different entity. The government grants rights and privileges to couples it recognizes as "married" and so the government can't restrict access to those rights and privileges based on gender, sex, or race. However that has nothing to do with a religious marriage which is ceremonial in nature other than a license (which requires no religion to acquire) and as such the government has no ability to dictate or control what that religion believes/empowers.
We have to decouple these two concepts because it gives a "logic ladder" for those that oppose gay rights to connect the abilities of gay couples to seek rights under a government institution to a persons right to practice their religion without government intervention. I also think we need to change the words we use, in this case we are using marriage in two completely different contexts which creates part of the issue as well.
Side note for those (not you Tower) who make the argument that gays shouldn't marry because that's not what marriage is per religious belief. You are 100% entitled to that belief and to practice your belief, but I am also 100% entitled to my belief that it is a bigoted position and will not stand the test of time.
-
I'm confused as to why the notions are in conflict. If we called government marriage a civil union for all couples regardless of gender, sex, or race and a religious-based recognition of the union of two souls in whatever combination a religion wants to recognize as marriage there is no conflict whatsoever. Government marriage is a social construct that grew out of the religious concept but is now a completely different entity. The government grants rights and privileges to couples it recognizes as "married" and so the government can't restrict access to those rights and privileges based on gender, sex, or race. However that has nothing to do with a religious marriage which is ceremonial in nature other than a license (which requires no religion to acquire) and as such the government has no ability to dictate or control what that religion believes/empowers.
We have to decouple these two concepts because it gives a "logic ladder" for those that oppose gay rights to connect the abilities of gay couples to seek rights under a government institution to a persons right to practice their religion without government intervention. I also think we need to change the words we use, in this case we are using marriage in two completely different contexts which creates part of the issue as well.
Side note for those (not you Tower) who make the argument that gays shouldn't marry because that's not what marriage is per religious belief. You are 100% entitled to that belief and to practice your belief, but I am also 100% entitled to my belief that it is a bigoted position and will not stand the test of time.
Changing words to accommodate the needs of those who are offended seems like it’d be a bit PC and lord knows Rocket, 69 and others hate that crowd and wouldn’t want to be lumped in with them.
-
I'm confused as to why the notions are in conflict. If we called government marriage a civil union for all couples regardless of gender, sex, or race and a religious-based recognition of the union of two souls in whatever combination a religion wants to recognize as marriage there is no conflict whatsoever. Government marriage is a social construct that grew out of the religious concept but is now a completely different entity. The government grants rights and privileges to couples it recognizes as "married" and so the government can't restrict access to those rights and privileges based on gender, sex, or race. However that has nothing to do with a religious marriage which is ceremonial in nature other than a license (which requires no religion to acquire) and as such the government has no ability to dictate or control what that religion believes/empowers.
We have to decouple these two concepts because it gives a "logic ladder" for those that oppose gay rights to connect the abilities of gay couples to seek rights under a government institution to a persons right to practice their religion without government intervention. I also think we need to change the words we use, in this case we are using marriage in two completely different contexts which creates part of the issue as well.
Side note for those (not you Tower) who make the argument that gays shouldn't marry because that's not what marriage is per religious belief. You are 100% entitled to that belief and to practice your belief, but I am also 100% entitled to my belief that it is a bigoted position and will not stand the test of time.
I think we are in agreement.
-
And yet "christians" wonder why people are leaving churches in droves.
Could be Kaepernik's fault.
People have been leaving churches in droves for thirty years. Sexual assault by priests, how the church handled it, hypocrisy in unlimited volumes is but one of many reasons.
-
Changing words to accommodate the needs of those who are offended seems like it’d be a bit PC and lord knows Rocket, 69 and others hate that crowd and wouldn’t want to be lumped in with them.
I know this is satire, but I would that it's not PC simply because these are literally two different concepts we should call them two different things.
I will give the "PC bull$hit" crowd something, all the PC crap is distorting our abilities to communicate with one another.
-
I know this is satire, but I would that it's not PC simply because these are literally two different concepts we should call them two different things.
I will give the "PC bull$hit" crowd something, all the PC crap is distorting our abilities to communicate with one another.
I’m so triggered by this
-
I know this is satire, but I would that it's not PC simply because these are literally two different concepts we should call them two different things.
I will give the "PC bull$hit" crowd something, all the PC crap is distorting our abilities to communicate with one another.
PC has not allowed people to communicate frankly and directly any longer. Tragic impact to the fabric of communication of human beings. People live in fear of what they can and cannot say, and that shuts down communication.
-
I know this is satire, but I would that it's not PC simply because these are literally two different concepts we should call them two different things.
I will give the "PC bull$hit" crowd something, all the PC crap is distorting our abilities to communicate with one another.
well stated! everything is peeled apart, dissected, pulled, pushed, "lawyerized", spun, until they get the meaning they want.
my point about the "hate groups" is where did that come from? what is it's real purpose? first you label something, make it a negative term, then let the attacks begin. it has become a whole new occupation. i guess they've got to find something for all those fill in the blank "studies" eyn'a?
-
Maybe I am missing it, but where does it say that?
"marriage (understood as a monogamous and permanent union between a man and a woman)"
-
well stated! everything is peeled apart, dissected, pulled, pushed, "lawyerized", spun, until they get the meaning they want.
my point about the "hate groups" is where did that come from? what is it's real purpose? first you label something, make it a negative term, then let the attacks begin. it has become a whole new occupation. i guess they've got to find something for all those fill in the blank "studies" eyn'a?
The definition of a hate group is very simple, IMHO. If the main tenet/purpose or one of the main tenets of a group is to encourage violence or limit the rights of or decrease the value of an individual based on a specific identity such as race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc
-
I'm confused as to why the notions are in conflict. If we called government marriage a civil union for all couples regardless of gender, sex, or race and a religious-based recognition of the union of two souls in whatever combination a religion wants to recognize as marriage there is no conflict whatsoever. Government marriage is a social construct that grew out of the religious concept but is now a completely different entity. The government grants rights and privileges to couples it recognizes as "married" and so the government can't restrict access to those rights and privileges based on gender, sex, or race. However that has nothing to do with a religious marriage which is ceremonial in nature other than a license (which requires no religion to acquire) and as such the government has no ability to dictate or control what that religion believes/empowers.
We have to decouple these two concepts because it gives a "logic ladder" for those that oppose gay rights to connect the abilities of gay couples to seek rights under a government institution to a persons right to practice their religion without government intervention. I also think we need to change the words we use, in this case we are using marriage in two completely different contexts which creates part of the issue as well.
Side note for those (not you Tower) who make the argument that gays shouldn't marry because that's not what marriage is per religious belief. You are 100% entitled to that belief and to practice your belief, but I am also 100% entitled to my belief that it is a bigoted position and will not stand the test of time.
Indeed, there are some old-school Catholics who do not recognize the validity (read: sacramental) of a Protestant marriage.
-
"marriage (understood as a monogamous and permanent union between a man and a woman)"
Doesn't say they shouldn't be allowed to marry. The group belives in the primacy of man-woman marriage to society.
It seems like man-woman marriage is still important to society. That's how I am reading it. Maybe I'm wrong or naive, but saying they believe in the primacy of marriage defined that way is not saying that no others shoud be able to.
-
Changing words to accommodate the needs of those who are offended seems like it’d be a bit PC and lord knows Rocket, 69 and others hate that crowd and wouldn’t want to be lumped in with them.
Did you just call me a hater? I don't hate "that crowd", I just disagree with them and their re-definition of marriage. Once you start changing the meaning of words then we lose any basis for understanding. You know you can disagree with people and still love them and be lumped in with them. Disagreeing does not mean hating, but then again perhaps to some the meaning of disagree means to hate and if that is true then how can we ever come to understand each other.
-
Did you just call me a hater? I don't hate "that crowd", I just disagree with them and their re-definition of marriage. Once you start changing the meaning of words then we lose any basis for understanding. You know you can disagree with people and still love them and be lumped in with them.
It was a satirical point that changing the name so it wouldn’t offend you seemed to be PC. Sorry my satirical choice of worded “hate” seemed to offend you. I will use more PC words with my joking in the future.
-
Doesn't say they shouldn't be allowed to marry. The group belives in the primacy of man-woman marriage to society.
It seems like man-woman marriage is still important to society. That's how I am reading it. Maybe I'm wrong or naive, but saying they believe in the primacy of marriage defined that way is not saying that no others shoud be able to.
Their essay in the school newspaper says the following:
"Love Saxa’s definition of marriage does not include same-sex couples."
It's perhaps a bit ambiguous, but I think believing they're opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage is a reasonable interpretation. And it's worth noting that when the school newspaper condemned Love Saxa for being opposed to same-sex marriage, the group issued a response that in no way denied that, but rather defended its stance as "synonymous with those of the Catholic Church, and therefore those of Georgetown University."
-
Did you just call me a hater? I don't hate "that crowd", I just disagree with them and their re-definition of marriage. Once you start changing the meaning of words then we lose any basis for understanding. You know you can disagree with people and still love them and be lumped in with them. Disagreeing does not mean hating, but then again perhaps to some the meaning of disagree means to hate and if that is true then how can we ever come to understand each other.
Oh, please. The meaning of words is always changing and society has not collapsed as a result.
But you're right, disagreeing with someone does not mean you hate them. Wishing to deny them equal rights, on the other hand ...
-
Did you just call me a hater? I don't hate "that crowd", I just disagree with them and their re-definition of marriage. Once you start changing the meaning of words then we lose any basis for understanding. You know you can disagree with people and still love them and be lumped in with them. Disagreeing does not mean hating, but then again perhaps to some the meaning of disagree means to hate and if that is true then how can we ever come to understand each other.
You are not a hater. But your belief that two men or two women should not be allowed to be married is a hateful belief. All human beings subscribe to at least some hateful beliefs, it doesn't mean that all human beings should be defined by a few beliefs that they hold.
-
Wishing to deny them equal rights, on the other hand ...
Eh that's a slippery slope. We have to be able to have legitimate policy discussions that impact society as a whole and your statement assumes an infallible truth which either may not be evident at the time or requires society to evolve to recognize.
I'm a big advocate of any couple regardless of orientation being able to be married (government version). I think in hindsight it should have been obvious that this was a natural right as well, as long as the government is recognizing the union of two people for the purposes of promoting a stable society then we must allow all couples to do it. However, we didn't have the hindsight at the time that we do now and has been an evolution of thought for a lot of people. Look at how rapidly societal opinion of gay marriage has changed as well as polling. It's only been in the last 4 years that we got to this point, so I'm willing to let slide that there are some out there that still need to evolve/wrap their brains around it.......labeling folks as a hate group for not having wrapped their brains around something seems counterproductive.
-
Eh that's a slippery slope. We have to be able to have legitimate policy discussions that impact society as a whole and your statement assumes an infallible truth which either may not be evident at the time or requires society to evolve to recognize.
I'm a big advocate of any couple regardless of orientation being able to be married (government version). I think in hindsight it should have been obvious that this was a natural right as well, as long as the government is recognizing the union of two people for the purposes of promoting a stable society then we must allow all couples to do it. However, we didn't have the hindsight at the time that we do now and has been an evolution of thought for a lot of people. Look at how rapidly societal opinion of gay marriage has changed as well as polling. It's only been in the last 4 years that we got to this point, so I'm willing to let slide that there are some out there that still need to evolve/wrap their brains around it.......labeling folks as a hate group for not having wrapped their brains around something seems counterproductive.
Well stated. It is far easier to label someone than to try to understand them. That is the trap the we all too often fall into.
I can't remember if it was Kierkegaard of Dick van Patten who said, if you label me, you negate me.
-
Eh that's a slippery slope. We have to be able to have legitimate policy discussions that impact society as a whole and your statement assumes an infallible truth which either may not be evident at the time or requires society to evolve to recognize.
I'm a big advocate of any couple regardless of orientation being able to be married (government version). I think in hindsight it should have been obvious that this was a natural right as well, as long as the government is recognizing the union of two people for the purposes of promoting a stable society then we must allow all couples to do it. However, we didn't have the hindsight at the time that we do now and has been an evolution of thought for a lot of people. Look at how rapidly societal opinion of gay marriage has changed as well as polling. It's only been in the last 4 years that we got to this point, so I'm willing to let slide that there are some out there that still need to evolve/wrap their brains around it.......labeling folks as a hate group for not having wrapped their brains around something seems counterproductive.
I'm assuming a benevolent misreading of my post, which undoubtedly could have been better written.
I'm not labeling anyone a hater because they hold a religious belief that leads them to disagree with same-sex marriage. That's their right and I don't begrudge it. I'm saying they're being hateful if they believe their religious belief in that regard ought to be imposed universally to deny others equal rights.
Perhaps it's too subtle a difference, but there you have it.
That said, at what point are you willing to label someone?
Can we label those very fine people who marched with tiki torches chanting "Jews will not replace us" as anti-Semites, or ought we try to understand them while their views evolve?
Can we use the "terrorist" label for those who encourage mass murder in the name of warped religious/political beliefs, or will that quash legitimate policy debate about Western influence in the Middle East?
Is it OK to call someone like Richard Spencer a racist, or is that counterproductive because he simply hasn't wrapped his brain around the concept that white supremacy is a disgusting philosophy? (Oh, darn, there I go again with my counterproductive labeling.)
If there's a slippery slope here, I'm not standing on it alone.
-
You are not a hater. But your belief that two men or two women should not be allowed to be married is a hateful belief. All human beings subscribe to at least some hateful beliefs, it doesn't mean that all human beings should be defined by a few beliefs that they hold.
I never said that. Marriage has always been defined, until recently, as the union of one man and one woman. When two men or two women form a union, that is not a marriage by my definition and it can never be one as they are as different as night and day. You can believe you definition and I can believe mine, but for some reason my belief is hateful. I have no problem with courts ruling that the union of two people of the same sex shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of a union between one man and one woman, but please don't call that a marriage because they are not the same or equal.
-
I never said that. Marriage has always been defined, until recently, as the union of one man and one woman. When two men or two women form a union, that is not a marriage by my definition and it can never be one as they are as different as night and day. You can believe you definition and I can believe mine, but for some reason my belief is hateful. I have no problem with courts ruling that the union of two people of the same sex shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of a union between one man and one woman, but please don't call that a marriage because they are not the same or equal.
Are we talking in your lifetime? Because that’s the only way this sentence is true or you’re completely ignoring years of polygamy, polyandry, plural marriage and more.
It’s like saying all priests have always been celibate, sure it’s true if you ignore The hundreds of years where it wasn’t and ignore other religions’ priests that are allowed to marry.
-
I never said that. Marriage has always been defined, until recently, as the union of one man and one woman. When two men or two women form a union, that is not a marriage by my definition and it can never be one as they are as different as night and day. You can believe you definition and I can believe mine, but for some reason my belief is hateful. I have no problem with courts ruling that the union of two people of the same sex shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of a union between one man and one woman, but please don't call that a marriage because they are not the same or equal.
So you are hung up over a definition of a word? What if the government simply called all such legal arrangements, regardless if they are the same sex or not, "unions." Would that be OK with you?
-
I'm assuming a benevolent misreading of my post, which undoubtedly could have been better written.
I'm not labeling anyone a hater because they hold a religious belief that leads them to disagree with same-sex marriage. That's their right and I don't begrudge it. I'm saying they're being hateful if they believe their religious belief in that regard ought to be imposed universally to deny others equal rights.
Perhaps it's too subtle a difference, but there you have it.
That said, at what point are you willing to label someone?
Can we label those very fine people who marched with tiki torches chanting "Jews will not replace us" as anti-Semites, or ought we try to understand them while their views evolve?
Can we use the "terrorist" label for those who encourage mass murder in the name of warped religious/political beliefs, or will that quash legitimate policy debate about Western influence in the Middle East?
Is it OK to call someone like Richard Spencer a racist, or is that counterproductive because he simply hasn't wrapped his brain around the concept that white supremacy is a disgusting philosophy? (Oh, darn, there I go again with my counterproductive labeling.)
If there's a slippery slope here, I'm not standing on it alone.
Nope, I read your post exactly as you intended and I stand by my response to it.
Being brutally honest, IMO, if you have to label a group you don't have the moral or intellectual ability to articulate why your position is morally or intellectually superior to that of the group you are labeling. I've learned that hard way that labeling people or groups is never useful so why do it?
Let's take each of your examples in turn:
1. The alt-right folks, I don't have to label them as Nazi's or anti-Semites or whatever. There statements/ideas represent that for them and I can easily argue against those ideas....why do I have to label them?
2. I've been told using the term terrorist inflames the Middle East, so why do I need to use the term? I can condemn those that commit terrorist acts without having to label anyone group.
3. Richard Spencer's words and actions label himself enough, why do I have to label him? We can easily argue against his thoughts and ideas without "calling him names"
Generally speaking I don't believe in -isms or -ists
-
So you are hung up over a definition of a word? What if the government simply called all such legal arrangements, regardless if they are the same sex or not, "unions." Would that be OK with you?
This is a fair amount of the problem, marriage means one thing to one group and another to a different group....if we aren't talking about the same thing then we can't agree about said thing.
-
I never said that. Marriage has always been defined, until recently, as the union of one man and one woman. When two men or two women form a union, that is not a marriage by my definition and it can never be one as they are as different as night and day. You can believe you definition and I can believe mine, but for some reason my belief is hateful. I have no problem with courts ruling that the union of two people of the same sex shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of a union between one man and one woman, but please don't call that a marriage because they are not the same or equal.
The bolded is where it becomes hateful or biased or discriminatory or whatever adjective you want to call it. You view marriages as superior to unions which is fine....until you say that LGBT couples cannot have marriages. You are denying something to someone on the basis of who they are as a person. Whether you mean to or not, you are saying "LGBT individuals are not worthy of marriages. They are only worthy of unions." If you thought both were equally good and it was just a definition thing, sure whatever, that's a whole other less impactful thing. But because you view one as superior to the other, and you want to deny a group the superior one on the basis of their sexual orientation.....that becomes an issue of bias.
My wife and I are married. Our friends Krystal and Maddie are married. Both of our marriages were preformed in the eyes of God by Christian pastors. Their marriage to each other is every bit as special, wonderful, loving, and holy as my wife and I's marriage. My wife and I being different genders doesn't make ours superior.
-
Being brutally honest, IMO, if you have to label a group you don't have the moral or intellectual ability to articulate why your position is morally or intellectually superior to that of the group you are labeling. I've learned that hard way that labeling people or groups is never useful so why do it?
Respectfully, this argument makes no sense and is well beneath your intellectual capacity.
Being able to define a person or an ideology is not a sign of moral or intellectual inferiority. It's a sign that one knows how to use words. You're arguing against the use of words.
According to your apparent position, Elie Wiesel lacks the moral or intellectual ability to express why genocide is bad because, you know, he "labels" those behind the Holocaust evil.
Ronald Reagan lacked the the moral or intellectual ability to express why the Soviet Union was a corrupt, oppressive and despotic regime because he labeled it that way ... and called it an "Evil Empire."
Oh, and you apparently you lack the moral or intellectual ability to argue against the ideology of the Charlottesville marchers because you label them "alt-right folks."
So much for your remarkable ability not to use labels.
Generally speaking I don't believe in -isms or -ists
Right. We've already established that words are bad.
-
This is a fair amount of the problem, marriage means one thing to one group and another to a different group....if we aren't talking about the same thing then we can't agree about said thing.
If there were only some way to define what things mean.
-
Eng, is your argument that it is okay to label actions but not people? For example, you would say 9/11 was a terrorist act but you wouldn't label the people who did it terrorists?
-
Respectfully, this argument makes no sense and is well beneath your intellectual capacity.
Being able to define a person or an ideology is not a sign of moral or intellectual inferiority. It's a sign that one knows how to use words. You're arguing against the use of words.
According to your apparent position, Elie Wiesel lacks the moral or intellectual ability to express why genocide is bad because, you know, he "labels" those behind the Holocaust evil.
Ronald Reagan lacked the the moral or intellectual ability to express why the Soviet Union was a corrupt, oppressive and despotic regime because he labeled it that way ... and called it an "Evil Empire."
Actually it is and your examples kind of prove my point. If you label a person or a group something, it has the effect of dehumanizing that person or group. It removes the nuance that is that person or group, in effect making it/them an amorphous blob. Both Elie and Reagan labeled for exactly those reasons, to remove any nuance or human characteristics from the group they were trying to aim the angry mob at. However their intention was not to reason with the thing they were labeling so it's not intellectually inferior, what they were doing was with purpose. If you want to do the same thing to Love Saxa, that is your prerogative but it has the impact of stifling debate and we both know you could easily win a debate with them.
Oh, and you apparently you lack the moral or intellectual ability to argue against the ideology of the Charlottesville marchers because you label them "alt-right folks."
So much for your remarkable ability not to use labels.
Fair, actually it was lazy not a lack of intelligence.
-
Eng, is your argument that it is okay to label actions but not people? For example, you would say 9/11 was a terrorist act but you wouldn't label the people who did it terrorists?
I'm not really saying labeling a person/group is ok or not ok, simply saying that if you choose to label it has the effect of silencing that group. Sometimes that exactly what you want, ala my response to Pakuni's Reagan/Elie Wiesel examples, a lot of times it's counterproductive.
To speak directly to your example, sure I'd label the 9/11 folks as terrorists....mostly because I don't care to nor can I have a debate with them.
And finally, yes, I think it's much more productive to label an action an -ist then a person, mostly because when you start labeling a person that way they are much less inclined to hear alternatives that may turn them away from the -ist action
-
I'm not really saying labeling a person/group is ok or not ok, simply saying that if you choose to label it has the effect of silencing that group. Sometimes that exactly what you want, ala my response to Pakuni's Reagan/Elie Wiesel examples, a lot of times it's counterproductive.
To speak directly to your example, sure I'd label the 9/11 folks as terrorists....mostly because I don't care to nor can I have a debate with them.
And finally, yes, I think it's much more productive to label an action an -ist then a person, mostly because when you start labeling a person that way they are much less inclined to hear alternatives that may turn them away from the -ist action
For the most part I agree with this. I can't imagine having a productive conversation with anyone after labeling them a racist, bigot, etc. I am a firm believer that there are very few true -ists in the world but everybody commits -ist actions and has -ist thoughts. When I have conversations like this I try to label the belief/action rather than person.
Fair or not, I think about groups differently. While individuals are complex and shouldn't be defined by their worst attributes....groups have the ability to define themselves in their mission and in their actions. I have trouble not seeing a group like the KKK as a hate group. Its just what they are, in the same way that basketball team is an athletic team, Alpha Beta Chi is a Greek Letter org, and Habitat for Humanity is a service organization.
But I do agree with your point about dehumanization. Groups are made up of individuals and I could see how labeling them a hate group changes them from a collection of individuals to a bunch of nameless monsters. Something I try to get across in a lot of the trainings and workshops that I teach is that those who commit acts of sexual violence are not monsters. They are regular men and women who choose to commit violent acts.
I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea yet, but you've given me something to think about.
-
Wow. Nice tangent, rs. Anyway, not that it matters, but my opinion is this. From an equal protection perspective, civil unions must be allowed. From a religious freedom perspective, you can't force the religions to recognize them or perform the ceremony. These two notions are in conflict. For me, when in doubt, I default to compassion.
That's about how I see it too.
And not to digress but I too worry about the term 'hate speech' being thrown around these days. I'm not sure it's about money although it might be. I see it as a way to simply silence opposition.
-
The definition of a hate group is very simple, IMHO. If the main tenet/purpose or one of the main tenets of a group is to encourage violence or limit the rights of or decrease the value of an individual based on a specific identity such as race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc
Too broad (pardon the pun). I think under your definition those, who call for marriage to be recognized by the government and demand the government provide special benefits to those who are married, are a hate group. Why should those who don't marry not be afforded the same respect and rights as those who do marry, gay or otherwise?
If the marriage discussion is truly about equality, then tell the government to stay out of granting special treatment to those who are married.
-
Too broad (pardon the pun). I think under your definition those, who call for marriage to be recognized by the government and demand the government provide special benefits to those who are married, are a hate group. Why should those who don't marry not be afforded the same respect and rights as those who do marry, gay or otherwise?
If the marriage discussion is truly about equality, then tell the government to stay out of granting special treatment to those who are married.
Just because you haven't been able to talk anyone into marrying you, don't try to ruin it for everyone else. ::)
And I am not sure what you mean by "special treatment". The marriage penalty has cost Glow and I six figures in additional income taxes.
-
Just because you haven't been able to talk anyone into marrying you, don't try to ruin it for everyone else. ::)
And I am not sure what you mean by "special treatment". The marriage penalty has cost Glow and I six figures in additional income taxes.
For example...
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html)
#StopTheHate
-
I'm confused as to why the notions are in conflict. If we called government marriage a civil union for all couples regardless of gender, sex, or race and a religious-based recognition of the union of two souls in whatever combination a religion wants to recognize as marriage there is no conflict whatsoever. Government marriage is a social construct that grew out of the religious concept but is now a completely different entity. The government grants rights and privileges to couples it recognizes as "married" and so the government can't restrict access to those rights and privileges based on gender, sex, or race. However that has nothing to do with a religious marriage which is ceremonial in nature other than a license (which requires no religion to acquire) and as such the government has no ability to dictate or control what that religion believes/empowers.
We have to decouple these two concepts because it gives a "logic ladder" for those that oppose gay rights to connect the abilities of gay couples to seek rights under a government institution to a persons right to practice their religion without government intervention. I also think we need to change the words we use, in this case we are using marriage in two completely different contexts which creates part of the issue as well.
Side note for those (not you Tower) who make the argument that gays shouldn't marry because that's not what marriage is per religious belief. You are 100% entitled to that belief and to practice your belief, but I am also 100% entitled to my belief that it is a bigoted position and will not stand the test of time.
Well stated. I concur...but I wouldn't have used "logic ladder" (really just messing with you this time).
I don't see how someone can disagree with your statement.
I'm also not sure that I would go as far as to call it a bigoted position, I might prefer to refer to it as an outdated belief/position just because of how charged the word bigoted is.
-
Too broad (pardon the pun). I think under your definition those, who call for marriage to be recognized by the government and demand the government provide special benefits to those who are married, are a hate group. Why should those who don't marry not be afforded the same respect and rights as those who do marry, gay or otherwise?
If the marriage discussion is truly about equality, then tell the government to stay out of granting special treatment to those who are married.
An interesting argument and one I don't necessarily disagree with. I'll be honest, I don't really know what rights or advantages a person gets from the government for being married. So far the only thing that has kicked in is that we had to pay a crap ton to change a bunch of paperwork because my wife wanted to take my name.
-
An interesting argument and one I don't necessarily disagree with. I'll be honest, I don't really know what rights or advantages a person gets from the government for being married. So far the only thing that has kicked in is that we had to pay a crap ton to change a bunch of paperwork because my wife wanted to take my name.
There are a crap-ton of legal benefits to being married. One of the more obvious one is taxation following inheritance. Your spouse can inherit the entire estate tax free. If not married, you pay taxes on the estate.
There are a number of other ones involving benefits (e.g. IRA's, Social Security...).
-
There are a crap-ton of legal benefits to being married. One of the more obvious one is taxation following inheritance. Your spouse can inherit the entire estate tax free. If not married, you pay taxes on the estate.
There are a number of other ones involving benefits (e.g. IRA's, Social Security...).
There are also situations where being married causes one to pay higher taxes.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/interactive-tools/marriage-bonus-and-penalty-tax-calculator
If divorce happens, 50/50 split but not usually the case if you don't marry. If you are married and still going to school, your financial aid prospects are lower as your spouse's income is included in the tabulation.
-
We've decided as a country - correctly, I believe - that marriage is beneficial to society, and therefore worth incentivizing.
Married people live longer, healthier, more productive lives, and are far less likely to need various forms of public assistance.
Married people are less likely to commit crimes, and the ones they do commit tend to be less serious.
Kids raised by married parents are significantly less likely to live in poverty, become delinquent (or end up incarcerated as adults), suffer emotional or behavioral problems, become victims of abuse, experience a teenage pregnancy, abuse alcohol or drugs, drop out of school or struggle academically.
Marriage is a good deal for taxpayers and should be encouraged by the government strictly for economic and societal reasons.
-
And has anyone or anyone's marriage been harmed by gay marriage? There are close to zero negatives about granting this right, and as Pakuni states, a great deal of positives.
-
We've decided as a country - correctly, I believe - that marriage is beneficial to society, and therefore worth incentivizing.
Married people live longer, healthier, more productive lives, and are far less likely to need various forms of public assistance.
Married people are less likely to commit crimes, and the ones they do commit tend to be less serious.
Kids raised by married parents are significantly less likely to live in poverty, become delinquent (or end up incarcerated as adults), suffer emotional or behavioral problems, become victims of abuse, experience a teenage pregnancy, abuse alcohol or drugs, drop out of school or struggle academically.
Marriage is a good deal for taxpayers and should be encouraged by the government strictly for economic and societal reasons.
I think Jay Bee's original point was that he is missing out on a lot of sweet perks because he has decided to remain single, not that he and any shack-up partner (NH) are being treated unfairly because they don't have "a piece of paper".
-
We've decided as a country - correctly, I believe - that marriage is beneficial to society, and therefore worth incentivizing.
Married people live longer, healthier, more productive lives, and are far less likely to need various forms of public assistance.
Married people are less likely to commit crimes, and the ones they do commit tend to be less serious.
Kids raised by married parents are significantly less likely to live in poverty, become delinquent (or end up incarcerated as adults), suffer emotional or behavioral problems, become victims of abuse, experience a teenage pregnancy, abuse alcohol or drugs, drop out of school or struggle academically.
Marriage is a good deal for taxpayers and should be encouraged by the government strictly for economic and societal reasons.
How is it incentivized? There may be benefits, but I do not see the incentives.
You generally pay higher taxes
-
How is it incentivized? There may be benefits, but I do not see the incentives.
You generally pay higher taxes
Is there a difference? The benefits incentivize people to get married versus simply living together.
-
There are also situations where being married causes one to pay higher taxes.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/interactive-tools/marriage-bonus-and-penalty-tax-calculator
If divorce happens, 50/50 split but not usually the case if you don't marry. If you are married and still going to school, your financial aid prospects are lower as your spouse's income is included in the tabulation.
Then if in your particular case (which is the minority) you do not benefit from getting married, you have the option to not get married. Why ban a particular group from partaking in legal benefits afforded others, for no reason besides their sexual preference?
-
How is it incentivized? There may be benefits, but I do not see the incentives.
You generally pay higher taxes
Are we arguing semantics here? Allowing access to a benefit = incentive.
-
We've decided as a country - correctly, I believe - that marriage is beneficial to society, and therefore worth incentivizing.
Married people live longer, healthier, more productive lives, and are far less likely to need various forms of public assistance.
Married people are less likely to commit crimes, and the ones they do commit tend to be less serious.
Kids raised by married parents are significantly less likely to live in poverty, become delinquent (or end up incarcerated as adults), suffer emotional or behavioral problems, become victims of abuse, experience a teenage pregnancy, abuse alcohol or drugs, drop out of school or struggle academically.
Marriage is a good deal for taxpayers and should be encouraged by the government strictly for economic and societal reasons.
How many of these can simply be attributed to the economies of scale (income, division of domestic labor, or both) of a two adult household? That's not a pandora's box attributable to, and only achievable by, marriage.
-
How many of these can simply be attributed to the economies of scale (income, division of domestic labor, or both) of a two adult household? That's not a pandora's box attributable to, and only achievable by, marriage.
For children, the differences between cohabiting and married parents extend far beyond the lack of a marriage license. Compared to children of married parents, those with cohabiting parents are more likely to experience the breakup of their families, be exposed to “complex” family forms, live in poverty, suffer abuse, and have negative psychological and educational outcomes.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/for-kids-parental-cohabitation-and-marriage-are-not-interchangeable/
-
For children, the differences between cohabiting and married parents extend far beyond the lack of a marriage license. Compared to children of married parents, those with cohabiting parents are more likely to experience the breakup of their families, be exposed to “complex” family forms, live in poverty, suffer abuse, and have negative psychological and educational outcomes.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/for-kids-parental-cohabitation-and-marriage-are-not-interchangeable/
Fine jumping off point, but these conclusions suffer from a major correlation vs causation problem. I posit that the institution of marriage is not responsible for the outcomes with which its credited nearly as much as the preexisting socioeconomic conditions of the individuals that are statistically more likely to marry.
-
The marriage penalty, to my knowledge, only impacts those on a higher socioeconomic plane. Those on the low to lower end of the socioeconomic plane who benefit from incentives are also most likely the ones to be positively impacted by the behavior they are trying to drive. So the fact that Jay Bee doesn't get "benefits" for staying single has no bearing on whether it is good social policy to have said benefits.
-
Fine jumping off point, but these conclusions suffer from a major correlation vs causation problem. I posit that the institution of marriage is not responsible for the outcomes with which its credited nearly as much as the preexisting socioeconomic conditions of the individuals that are statistically more likely to marry.
Posit away, but does any actual research support that? For example, are the outcomes for lower-income children of married parents the same or similar to those raised in single-parent or cohabitating households?
-
Just because you haven't been able to talk anyone into marrying you, don't try to ruin it for everyone else. ::)
And I am not sure what you mean by "special treatment". The marriage penalty has cost Glow and I six figures in additional income taxes.
There go those 100 inch TVs!
-
Posit away, but does any actual research support that? For example, are the outcomes for lower-income children of married parents the same or similar to those raised in single-parent or cohabitating households?
What about a survey of studies on the outcomes of children of same-sex parents - a population to whom marriage as an institution was wholly unavailable until very recently? Concludes that children of same-sex parents do not have worse outcomes than children of opposite-sex parents.
I'm sure the opposite-sex parent populations include a lot of unmarried parents, but if the institution of marriage alone were statistically significant, wouldn't that by extension make life harder for the same-sex parent children, 100% of whose parents are unmarried?
http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/ (http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/)
-
What about a survey of studies on the outcomes of children of same-sex parents - a population to whom marriage as an institution was wholly unavailable until very recently? Concludes that children of same-sex parents do not have worse outcomes than children of opposite-sex parents.
I'm sure the opposite-sex parent populations include a lot of unmarried parents, but if the institution of marriage alone were statistically significant, wouldn't that by extension make life harder for the same-sex parent children, 100% of whose parents are unmarried?
http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/ (http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/)
I would tend to think children in same sex families would be ok, because the couple has to really seek out the children, and go through a process to acquire them. This, I think, would generally show a level of relationship commitment different from some other co-habitation couples. Kids don't result from homosexual unions (shouldn't be news), this is quite different from male-female couples. I think this makes those situations a very shaky comparison.
But with that being said, this study is 75 couples. That is a pretty useless sample size.
-
I would tend to think children in same sex families would be ok, because the couple has to really seek out the children, and go through a process to acquire them. This, I think, would generally show a level of relationship commitment different from some other co-habitation couples. Kids don't result from homosexual unions (shouldn't be news), this is quite different from male-female couples. I think this makes those situations a very shaky comparison.
But with that being said, this study is 75 couples. That is a pretty useless sample size.
If it's two women, not necessarily.
-
I think Jay Bee's original point was that he is missing out on a lot of sweet perks because he has decided to remain single, not that he and any shack-up partner (NH) are being treated unfairly because they don't have "a piece of paper".
This is brilliant. ;D
-
I would tend to think children in same sex families would be ok, because the couple has to really seek out the children, and go through a process to acquire them. This, I think, would generally show a level of relationship commitment different from some other co-habitation couples. Kids don't result from homosexual unions (shouldn't be news), this is quite different from male-female couples. I think this makes those situations a very shaky comparison.
But with that being said, this study is 75 couples. That is a pretty useless sample size.
Couple of thoughts. 75 studies, not 75 couples, so its really a compilation of a lot of studies of a lot of couples.
And the level of commitment argument, to me, exactly proves my point - that there's a problem with saying government should be incentivizing marriage because it reaps societal benefits. The socioeconomic circumstances of the parents is the causation behind the child's outcomes - not whether those parents are married. It just so happens that, statistically, the people that are the most likely to be married are also the people who are most able/prepared to give their future children the advantages that lead to positive outcomes, whether they are married or not. In that respect, a same-sex couple that has the means for adoption, IVF, etc, is likely in a socioeconomic class that bodes well for that child.
Marriage just gets the credit because it correlates heavily, not because its actually playing a causal role.
-
Couple of thoughts. 75 studies, not 75 couples, so its really a compilation of a lot of studies of a lot of couples.
And the level of commitment argument, to me, exactly proves my point - that there's a problem with saying government should be incentivizing marriage because it reaps societal benefits. The socioeconomic circumstances of the parents is the causation behind the child's outcomes - not whether those parents are married. It just so happens that, statistically, the people that are the most likely to be married are also the people who are most able/prepared to give their future children the advantages that lead to positive outcomes, whether they are married or not. In that respect, a same-sex couple that has the means for adoption, IVF, etc, is likely in a socioeconomic class that bodes well for that child.
Marriage just gets the credit because it correlates heavily, not because its actually playing a causal role.
I think we can agree that the stability provided within the circumstances of a marital relationship - and not the marriage itself - is what produces better outcomes for both the couple and their children.
You seem to be making the case (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the same outcomes would exist from a cohabitating couple as ine that goes through with a marriage.
Could you discuss that position in light of these facts:
- Cohabiting couples had a separation rate five times that of married couples and a reconciliation rate that was one-third that of married couples.
- Cohabiting couples earn less money and are less wealthy than their married peers later in life.
- Compared to married individuals, those cohabiting have higher levels of depression and substance abuse.
- Compared to those planning to marry, those cohabiting have an overall poorer relationship quality. They tend to have more fighting and violence and less reported happiness.
https://www.thespruce.com/cohabitation-facts-and-statistics-2302236
-
Are we arguing semantics here? Allowing access to a benefit = incentive.
I view higher taxes for being married (vs two people living together) as a disincentive
Is that semantics?
-
And has anyone or anyone's marriage been harmed by gay marriage? There are close to zero negatives about granting this right, and as Pakuni states, a great deal of positives.
If I were gay and/or in a gay marriage, I would cringe at this argument. The first sentence anyway. The rest of it is opinion. Please do NOT interpret this as me being anti-gay. Remember, I’m an MLK guy as a strong strong proponent for the content of ones character.
-
I think we can agree that the stability provided within the circumstances of a marital relationship - and not the marriage itself - is what produces better outcomes for both the couple and their children.
Could you discuss that position in light of these facts:
- Cohabiting couples had a separation rate five times that of married couples and a reconciliation rate that was one-third that of married couples.
- Cohabiting couples earn less money and are less wealthy than their married peers later in life.
- Compared to married individuals, those cohabiting have higher levels of depression and substance abuse.
- Compared to those planning to marry, those cohabiting have an overall poorer relationship quality. They tend to have more fighting and violence and less reported happiness.
https://www.thespruce.com/cohabitation-facts-and-statistics-2302236
I'll give it a go.
1. Couples more committed to each other and their relationship are more likely to get married. A study would need to control for marriage: Either force all couples to marry, allow no couples to marry, or randomly assign which couples get married.
2. Socioeconomic status predicts both earning power and the likelihood of marriage. Unless wages and raises are now based on marital status and length, I think this is once again confusing correlation with causation.
3. Do substance abuse issues and depression make someone a more attractive marriage option or less attractive? Not saying such people are not worthy of love, but I don't think we can ignore this as a possibility.
4. The poor relationship quality prevents people from getting married, not the other way around.
-
I think we can agree that the stability provided within the circumstances of a marital relationship - and not the marriage itself - is what produces better outcomes for both the couple and their children.
You seem to be making the case (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the same outcomes would exist from a cohabitating couple as ine that goes through with a marriage.
Could you discuss that position in light of these facts:
- Cohabiting couples had a separation rate five times that of married couples and a reconciliation rate that was one-third that of married couples.
- Cohabiting couples earn less money and are less wealthy than their married peers later in life.
- Compared to married individuals, those cohabiting have higher levels of depression and substance abuse.
- Compared to those planning to marry, those cohabiting have an overall poorer relationship quality. They tend to have more fighting and violence and less reported happiness.
https://www.thespruce.com/cohabitation-facts-and-statistics-2302236
Totally - I don't think we're all that far apart. But imho, there are no marginal returns to society by incentivizing those same cohabitating couples to become married couples. Reasonable minds can certainly disagree there.
I don't for a second doubt the veracity of the statistics, but I don't think they lead to the conclusion that we as a society have anything to gain by incentivizing marriage. If you allocate incentives to try to transition some number of the unmarried cohabitating couples into the married column, I think you'd also just be transitioning the socioeconomic conditions that are the real predictive factor of their children's outcomes. For every additional 1% of children that would be raised in married homes, marriage would be 1% less predictive of positive child outcomes. I don't think you'd actually be taking steps to improve child outcomes in the aggregate.
In my book, to the extent the tax code incentivizes marriage (I don't profess to know the revenue impact of marriage "incentives" vs "penalties") I think you'd positively impact children more by eliminating any reduction in tax designed to incentivize marriage, and take that additional revenue and chuck it toward expanding the earned income tax credit.
-
If I were gay and/or in a gay marriage, I would cringe at this argument. The first sentence anyway. The rest of it is opinion. Please do NOT interpret this as me being anti-gay. Remember, I’m an MLK guy as a strong strong proponent for the content of ones character.
Well you aren't gay, and are not in a gay marriage, but many of my LGTBQ friends make this exact same argument.
-
When my Catholic girlfriend and I got engaged while we were still in college, my mother sent me results of some kind of study that showed the pitfalls of interfaith marriages. They were more likely to create all kinds of problems, both for the couple and the kids. There would be all kinds of stress and strain, including financial, extended family, etc.
Interestingly, my two older brothers each married Jewish girls ... and each ended up getting divorced and is now on his second wife.
Meanwhile, my Catholic wife and I are now in Year 35. We started out not thinking about religion at all, tried the Jewish thing for a few years (at her insistence) and have been happily atheist for at least 10 years now.
So I'm sure there are studies that show all kinds of things that are more likely to happen to this group or that group, but each married couple and/or cohabiting couple is very different. I've always been wary of using marriage to dictate policy. But yes, I have been glad to take advantage of the tax perks.
All IMHO, of course.
-
Well you aren't gay, and are not in a gay marriage, but many of my LGTBQ friends make this exact same argument.
Reinko my man, you are right and right, but, I’m just saying, arguing about whether or not something or someone is “harmed” by something to make it right, proper, ok, etc is not a good argument. As a matter of fact, I think it would be insulting to a gay or straight person. There are much stronger reasons for why a gay marriage is ok. Should it be legalized in the eyes of the government? I stay out of that because if I were to disagree with that aspect of the relationship, it would be purely selfish and because as you correctly stated, I am not gay or in a gay marriage. And yes, I do have some family members in long term relationships, one I believe is married, but it doesn’t matter to me. They are great people, married or not
-
Lots of you are in a hate group, I see.
When are we going to go after insurance companies for charging different rates based on "gender", when it's a fluid thing and not something that should cause higher costs for one vs. another (of the thousands types of genders, ain@?)
I think the principled argument FOR marriage being afforded special benefits by the federal gov't is what lil Mike brought up - society feels being married is such a great benefit to families and society that the federal gov't should give those people special benefits and rights.
While principled, I think it's also absurd and opens the door for giving benefits for any number of reasons. It also ignores that marriage is driven - for many people - by religious views (including timing, the population of potential mates, etc.).
Government need not give special benefits for "laying a landscape" (e.g., getting married) for a higher likelihood of success. The benefits will arise by people doing well for themselves or not.
#StopMarriageDiscrimination
-
Lots of you are in a hate group, I see.
Only one side can be in a hate group. You need to learn this
-
Only one side can be in a hate group. You need to learn this
http://dailycaller.com/about-us/ (http://dailycaller.com/about-us/)