Michael Irvin is on the cover of Out magazine

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Michael Irvin is on the cover of Out magazine

Michael Irvin's always been a passionate guy. He played with passion as he helped the Dallas Cowboys win three Super Bowls, and he speaks passionately now that he's paid to talk about the game.

His passion has most recently turned towards the gay community. The Playmaker now sees it as his mission in life to fight homophobia and bring people closer together.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/sh...s-on-the-cover-of-Out-magazine?urn=nfl-wp3312

so the constitution denies homosexual marriage rights.....?

so the constitution grants annulments to britney spears marriage rights.....?
 
IMO, the constitution prohibits government from regulating religious ceremonies like marriage and they should butt out of people's lives in that arena all together other than to ensure that there is informed adult choices (no marrying off your 14 year old in an "arranged" marriage that amounts to slavery). I've never been able to understand why people so desperately want the government stepping into that arena at all.
 
Damocles said:
IMO, the constitution prohibits government from regulating religious ceremonies like marriage and they should butt out of people's lives in that arena all together other than to ensure that there is informed adult choices (no marrying off your 14 year old in an "arranged" marriage that amounts to slavery). I've never been able to understand why people so desperately want the government stepping into that arena at all.
Click to expand...

First, you need to recognize the difference between secular marriage and religious marriage. They are two separate institutions. Once you understand that it should all make sense for you.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
First, you need to recognize the difference between secular marriage and religious marriage. They are two separate institutions. Once you understand that it should all make sense for you.
Click to expand...

That sounds great. But the issue for those fighting for gay marriage is the, up to, 1,400 benefits that the gov't bestows on married couples that gays cannot get. I agree with Damo that the gov't should not be in the marriage licence business at all.

But if they ARE there, they should be fair and even-handed.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
First, you need to recognize the difference between secular marriage and religious marriage. They are two separate institutions. Once you understand that it should all make sense for you.
Click to expand...

Actually, no I don't. If the government isn't regulating and protecting "marriage" secular people could get "married" where they please as well as homosexuals. It is quite literally something that government messed up horribly by stepping in where it does not belong. Why do you want government to license your relationships at all? What good does that do? Why do you need government's permission and "blessing"? Why should we give benefits to people because they get married that we won't give to people who don't have a license in a like relationship?

I understand "secular" marriage, it is simply another sign that government is trying to incentivize certain relationships and actions... In the land of the free your choices shouldn't be limited to government-sanctioned marriages, they have no place defining and guiding your relationships, either to specific religious definitions or to include each as they see fit. It isn't their business how you run your life so long as you are not forcing, hiding information, or otherwise creating victims through those actions. How informed consenting adults interact just isn't their business.
 
WinterBorn said:
That sounds great. But the issue for those fighting for gay marriage is the, up to, 1,400 benefits that the gov't bestows on married couples that gays cannot get. I agree with Damo that the gov't should not be in the marriage licence business at all.

But if they ARE there, they should be fair and even-handed.
Click to expand...

I understand all that. If you recognize the difference between secular marriage, which is the only source of state recognized rights and benefits that you've mentioned, and you realize that it has absolutely nothing to do with religious marriage, then there is no reason to say things like "the constitution prohibits the government regulating religious ceremonies like marriage" because the government doesn't do that. Catholic churches in Massachusetts don't have to marry gay couples. The Catholic church can define marriage however the fuck it wants. The government doesn't "step into the arena" of religious marriage.

The only institution that actually matters here on Earth is secular marriage, and I agree with you that the government shouldn't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation when it comes to secular marriage.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
I understand all that. If you recognize the difference between secular marriage, which is the only source of state recognized rights and benefits that you've mentioned, and you realize that it has absolutely nothing to do with religious marriage, then there is no reason to say things like "the constitution prohibits the government regulating religious ceremonies like marriage" because the government doesn't do that. Catholic churches in Massachusetts don't have to marry gay couples. The Catholic church can define marriage however the fuck it wants. The government doesn't "step into the arena" of religious marriage.

The only institution that actually matters here on Earth is secular marriage, and I agree with you that the government shouldn't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation when it comes to secular marriage.
Click to expand...

Again, it doesn't matter if you call it "secular" it is still government trying to incentivize how they believe you should act by sanctioning specific actions and giving "benefits" if you act rightly. I don't understand why we should allow the government this level of control over the simplest of actions in our life. The desperation to be "sanctioned" makes people start acting stupid. Government "blessings" or "benefits" should not be used as the carrot or stick to attempt to get everybody to fit within your box any more than they should be used to get them to fit within the box defined by any specific religion.

In short, calling it "secular" so you can regulate and define it to your heart's content isn't any better than defining it solely by the majority religions.
 
Damocles said:
Again, it doesn't matter if you call it "secular" it is still government trying to incentivize how they believe you should act by sanctioning specific actions and giving "benefits" if you act rightly. I don't understand why we should allow the government this level of control over the simplest of actions in our life. The desperation to be "sanctioned" makes people start acting stupid. Government "blessings" or "benefits" should not be used as the carrot or stick to attempt to get everybody to fit within your box any more than they should be used to get them to fit within the box defined by any specific religion.

In short, calling it "secular" so you can regulate and define it to your heart's content isn't any better than defining it solely by the majority religions.
Click to expand...


Without government recognition of the relationship, there are no attendant rights and benefits. That's why it matters. If the government does not recognize you as a person's spouse, then there are all sorts of rights and benefits that you and that person cannot enjoy and exercise. It isn't about "permission" or government "blessing." It's about obtaining rights attendant to marriage that have developed over the course of hundreds of years of development of the law of domestic relations.

You can argue for undoing several hundred years of common law and statutory law if you wish, but it doesn't make a heck of a lot of practical sense.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Oh look, they are talking about gay marriage. They must be closet gays.
Click to expand...

Thats not quite what was said to you, now was it?

But if you can't contribute to the conversation, go sit at the children's table and leave this topic to the grownups.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Without government recognition of the relationship, there are no attendant rights and benefits. That's why it matters. If the government does not recognize you as a person's spouse, then there are all sorts of rights and benefits that you and that person cannot enjoy and exercise. It isn't about "permission" or government "blessing." It's about obtaining rights attendant to marriage that have developed over the course of hundreds of years of development of the law of domestic relations.

You can argue for undoing several hundred years of common law and statutory law if you wish, but it doesn't make a heck of a lot of practical sense.
Click to expand...

I think the benefits given to married couples should be stopped. I do not think the gov't should be wasting our tax dollars on interferring in personal relationships.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Without government recognition of the relationship, there are no attendant rights and benefits. That's why it matters. If the government does not recognize you as a person's spouse, then there are all sorts of rights and benefits that you and that person cannot enjoy and exercise. It isn't about "permission" or government "blessing." It's about obtaining rights attendant to marriage that have developed over the course of hundreds of years of development of the law of domestic relations.

You can argue for undoing several hundred years of common law and statutory law if you wish, but it doesn't make a heck of a lot of practical sense.
Click to expand...

Right, the desperation to be "sanctioned" is based on the incentives the government gives to force you to act how they wish, in this case either according to the rules of the majority religion or "not" and the rules must be based on the sanction of "secular" beliefs. They use a carrot and a stick. If you do it any other way then you may go to jail (Dude on "Sister Wives" as an example), or you don't get these great things that we give to people who do what we say and act exactly as we want, they only associate in relationships like we want them...

Either way it is the same action by the government and unnecessary. We shouldn't allow the government in our lives to this level. IMO, the 1st Amendment prohibits it anyway, whether through religion or through association rights. The government shouldn't be allowed to govern our families to this level at all. This argument should be moot.
 
WinterBorn said:
I think the benefits given to married couples should be stopped. I do not think the gov't should be wasting our tax dollars on interferring in personal relationships.
Click to expand...


What benefits in particular? DO you distinguish between rights and benefits (i.e. the right to make medical decision versus the right to receive Social Security benefits)?

And I don't see how the government is interfering in personal relationship by allowing persons who wish to sign up for the bundle of rights, benefits and obligations attendant to secular marriage to sign up for that. If you don't want the government to interfere in your relationship, don't sign up for it.
 
Damocles said:
Right, the desperation to be "sanctioned" is based on the incentives the government gives to force you to act how they wish, in this case either according to the rules of the majority religion or "not" and the rules must be based on the sanction of "secular" beliefs. They use a carrot and a stick. If you do it any other way then you may go to jail (Dude on "Sister Wives" as an example), or you don't get these great things that we give to people who do what we say and act exactly as we want, they only associate in relationships like we want them...
Click to expand...

Again, you're conflating two separate concepts. If you want to have three different women that you call your "wives," go right ahead, but it doesn't mean the state will recognize the legality of your "marriages."

Damocles said:
Either way it is the same action by the government and unnecessary. We shouldn't allow the government in our lives to this level. IMO, the 1st Amendment prohibits it anyway, whether through religion or through association rights. The government shouldn't be allowed to govern our families to this level at all. This argument should be moot.
Click to expand...

The government only interferes if you ask it to. If you go get married in a church and don't file paperwork with the state the government doesn't have anything to do with your "marriage." If you want to structure your relationship in some other manner go right ahead. Draw up whatever contracts you want to define the terms and conditions of your relationship.

Basically, you want to decide for everyone else whether they can sign up for the bundle of rights, benefits and obligations that are secular marriage. Why should you get to make that determination for everyone else?
 
WinterBorn said:
That sounds great. But the issue for those fighting for gay marriage is the, up to, 1,400 benefits that the gov't bestows on married couples that gays cannot get. I agree with Damo that the gov't should not be in the marriage licence business at all.

But if they ARE there, they should be fair and even-handed.
Click to expand...

Agreed, 100%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top