You Can Play

[Gary]

I wanted to interject this debate to make sure you know that I love you all.

Carry on.

Braden we love yoy with graphite colored rainbows!

We now get back to you our regular scheduled -Dan threadjacking!

[infrared41]

Charger, the radical changes you mention were about expanding freedom, not restricting it.

My (and I assume infrared's) stance is about expanding freedom not about restricting it. I am not sure how you can't see it.

Absolutely. At no point have either one of us advocated a "separate but equal" position on marriage. My position on the matter is simple; the government, be it state, federal, or otherwise, has no compelling interest in marriage. Just because it's the way we've always done it doesn't mean it's right. Under our current structure, marriage is discriminatory. It's that simple. There are things that my girlfriend and I don't have access to solely because we're not married. We are not afforded the same rights and benefits that a married couple is. The entire nation can allow gay marriage tomorrow, and it wouldn't change the fact that state sanctioned marriage is still discriminatory by it's very nature.

Why should my girlfriend and I be subjected to higher taxes solely because the state has not sanctioned our relationship? What's fair about that? Better yet, if we want to enter into some sort of contract with regard to our property, etc., shouldn't it be our choice? There are states where the minute we're married, everything we own becomes "community property" or whatever it's called. If we want to avoid that then we have to write up some sort of agreement ahead of time. How is that any different than writing up a contract that states we are now sharing everything? It's different because we have the choice to set it up however we see fit. The point is that there are many aspects of marriage that are all-encompassing whether you want them to be or not. Removing the state from the equation and allowing people to proceed with legal matters in their relationship however they see fit is much more fair than forcing a bunch of stuff on them and requiring them to find their own way out of it.

Hopefully that helps clear up where I'm coming from. I feel that there's nothing "separate but equal" about my position on the matter.

[charger77]

I wanted to interject this debate to make sure you know that I love you all.

Carry on.

Braden we love you with graphite colored rainbows!

We now get back to you our regular scheduled -Dan threadjacking!

How is being:

100% in support of the You Can Play program (which is the original intent of this thread)

Touting the resume of Rick Welts the moment I learned about him

And

Being 100% in support of Gay marriage and providing direct quotation from American Law to support my defense of it thread jacking?

I may have the most posts in this thread, but as you'll see they have been 100% in support Gay rights and equality for all. I cited law to take the "I feels" and "It should be this way" out of the discussion to show the way it is legally required to be.

Much like the Invisible Children thread drew awareness to Kory in the Lounge awareness has been drawn to the issue of gay rights.

Yes, this thread originated with the You Can Play program, however 100 post of "+1", "this" or "I agree" do not really bring anything new to the conversation, so the conversation evolved to larger issue of gay rights (which the You Can Play program is essentially about).

I am not sure how discussing (and being in favor of) gay rights is either a bad thing or thread jacking. I believe my contributions to this tread have been positive and productive and I have been in no way shape or form hostile, accusatory or mean spirited to a fellow poster.

[Gothamite]

This conversation has been on the whole respectful. Thanks to you all.

(Even if you're wrong about the Tenth Amendment somehow overruling the Ninth).

Let me just say that I don't think you guys are deliberately advocating separate-but-equal. Quite the opposite. That would be, however, the inevitable result of overturning civil marriage for all and giving the institution over entirely to people who want to discriminate.

[Epiphanic]

I think the marriage discussion between Gothamite and Infrared/Charger is missing a crucial point. Forget about the religious aspect of the institution of marriage because it's not germane to the discussion. Currently, the institution of marriage is a civil one. Gothamite is arguing that since it is a civil institution, it be afforded to all citizens. It seems that Infrared/Charger are trying to argue against the institution itself. In otherwords, no marriages or civil unions for anyone.

Edit: I re-read Goth's post above me and he says the same thing I just did.

[slapshot]

I wanted to interject this debate to make sure you know that I love you all.

Carry on.

I'm still waiting for "nice wang".

[charger77]

It seems that Infrared/Charger are trying to argue against the institution itself. In otherwords, no marriages or civil unions for anyone.

We are arguing for Civil Unions for all.

[OnWis97]

On 3/8/2012 at 8:03 AM, charger77 said:

On 3/8/2012 at 7:33 AM, Epiphanic said:

It seems that Infrared/Charger are trying to argue against the institution itself. In otherwords, no marriages or civil unions for anyone.

We are arguing for Civil Unions for all.

 

 

[charger77]

It seems that Infrared/Charger are trying to argue against the institution itself. In otherwords, no marriages or civil unions for anyone.

We are arguing for Civil Unions for all.

Abortions for some. Miniature American flags for others.

Nice contribution

To be honest though I was thinking that when I typed the statement in question lol.

[infrared41]

I think the marriage discussion between Gothamite and Infrared/Charger is missing a crucial point. Forget about the religious aspect of the institution of marriage because it's not germane to the discussion. Currently, the institution of marriage is a civil one. Gothamite is arguing that since it is a civil institution, it be afforded to all citizens. It seems that Infrared/Charger are trying to argue against the institution itself. In otherwords, no marriages or civil unions for anyone.

Edit: I re-read Goth's post above me and he says the same thing I just did.

No, no state sanctioned marriages or civil unions. What I'm saying is if a couple wants to go all in and attach themselves to each other as a partnership, they should be allowed to set it up how they see fit. For example: if they want to keep their property separate then they set up their marriage that way.

As it stands right now, state sanctioned marriage is pretty much all or nothing. All I'm advocating is taking the government regulation (for lack of a better term) out of the equation so a couple can arrange their marriage however they see fit. The government can still legally acknowledge a marriage, they just have no business setting the rules for a marriage. My version of state sanctioned marriage would be nothing more than a business deal between two people. Let the couples set up the legal side of their marriage. Let the churches throw in all the other stuff. It's very easy to get married and incredibly difficult to get out of it. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

My argument is based on one simple premise. The state has no compelling interest in defining what a marriage is. I've yet to see the argument that shows me it does.

[slapshot]

Abortions for some. Miniature American flags for others.

[RedSox44]

I wanted to interject this debate to make sure you know that I love you all.

Carry on.

You too. *hug*

[Hathaway Browne]

I know there's a long discussion going on, but I'd just like to jump in and add my voice of support to this cause. Thanks for posting the video OP.

[njmeadowlanders]

Abortions for some. Miniature American flags for others.

Fantastic. I actually saw a band at a teeny-tiny local venue about 6-7 years ago called "I Voted for Kodos". They sucked though.

Oh yeah, and I too agree with this. Doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, bisexual, black, white, male, female, an alien from another planet, or whatever.

[Chawls]

I wanted to interject this debate to make sure you know that I love you all.

Carry on.

I like you too. That's why I follow you on Twitter.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Abortions for some. Miniature American flags for others.

Fantastic. I actually saw a band at a teeny-tiny local venue about 6-7 years ago called "I Voted for Kodos". They sucked though.

Oh yeah, and I too agree with this. Doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, bisexual, black, white, male, female, an alien from another planet, or whatever.

Ska band, right? My old band was on a compilation with them once.

Weird.

[Braden]

Maybe I'm going a little against the grain and off topic, but I wanted to throw this out there.

I wanted to give you guys kind of a glimpse of what its like being a sports fanatic just like all of us are, but in the gay community. I play in leagues for Flag Football, Indoor Volleyball, Slo-Pitch Softball & Hockey. It's not what you think it might be...

This is the trailer for the movie Flag Football, about the Gay Flag Football championships (Gay Bowl).

I actually participated in the 2011 Gay Bowl last year in Houston as part of the first ever team from Toronto (first non-American team too).

We played that LA team in the movie trailer and lost 70-0. Those guys are just ridiculous athletes, and a blast to play against.

[Epiphanic]

Holy crap those guys are intense.

[Chawls]

"If you have the balls to throw the f?g...flag." I lol'd when he said that because it was incedental irony, given the brutal nature of football.

[charger77]

Braden, if you don't mind, can you clear space for a PM I have a question about the Flag Football League if that is cool with you.