Sportscaster fired for supporting traditional marriage

[QMO]

Originally Posted by Loner

I dispute that more people choosing to commit to each other constitutes an erosion of the institution, or that gay people choosing commitment is somehow a cause/furthering of lack of commitment. It's the opposite, in fact...

Nice deliberate (dishonest) confusion of "commitment" with "marriage."

[Descalzo]

Originally Posted by mr coffee

Thank you! If we can't speak without the risk of losing our livelihood, then I'd say we don't have free speech.

I find it hard to pin down just what is wrong with this, but here's a try:

If I say something that makes my wife want to leave me then I have lost way more than my livelihood. Do I have free speech?

[Sentinel]

Originally Posted by Loner

I dispute that more people choosing to commit to each other constitutes an erosion of the institution, or that gay people choosing commitment is somehow a cause/furthering of lack of commitment. It's the opposite, in fact.

Commitment <> marriage. Changing the definition of marriage that has provided stable foundation for families throughout generations to now include any type of relationship that enters the human mind is erosion of marriage.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by QMO

Nice deliberate (dishonest) confusion of "commitment" with "marriage."

Spoken like a true Mormon.

[JohnLocke]

Originally Posted by sweetiepie

Why do you think some people hate capitalism? My job requires me to dress a certain way, talk a certain way, and think a certain way.

what a good arguement. I'm Sure socialism doesn't have this problem

[sweetiepie]

Originally Posted by QMO

Nice deliberate (dishonest) confusion of "commitment"
with "marriage."

Commitment <> marriage. Changing the definition of marriage that has provided stable foundation for families throughout generations to now include any type of relationship that enters the human mind is erosion of marriage.

I think most people consider marriage to be an official and final commitment. The fruits of marriage are just the fruits of supreme commitment. When most people worry about marriage losing purpose, they are mostly talking about this commitment losing meaning. Maybe it means something else to you two, but it's hardly an invalid or dishonest approach to the question.

[sweetiepie]

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

what a good arguement. I'm Sure socialism doesn't have this problem

Socialism was invented as a solution to this problem. Not to say it's worked all that well. But yeah, establishing powerful authorities, whether though money or law, tends to lead to sucky little traps.

[Loner]

Originally Posted by QMO

Nice deliberate (dishonest) confusion of "commitment" with "marriage."

If you don't think marriage is a commitment, you're the one who's confused.

[Mr. B]

Originally Posted by Lucy

I don't know that that is a function of "capitalism", per se, but yes, this is the sort of thing I am thinking of when I remind my libertarian friends that government isn't the only vastly powerful entity controlling our lives.

If you don't like it, peddle your wares somewhere else (or start your own company). That's the beauty of competition: if you don't like one company, you can work or take your business elsewhere. You don't have that choice when the government dictates all work conditions.

[Mr. B]

Originally Posted by Descalzo

I find it hard to pin down just what is wrong with this, but here's a try:

If I say something that makes my wife want to leave me then I have lost way more than my livelihood. Do I have free speech?

Simple solution: abolish marriage (or, better yet, just to be sure, eradicate all women).

Problem solved.