Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jamie B on May 06, 2012, 05:30:38 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/biden-gay-marriage-absolutely-comfortable-men-marrying-men-152035862.html
Biden on gay marriage: ‘Absolutely comfortable with men marrying men, women marrying women’
The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don't see much of a distinction--beyond that.
If Biden is going to take this position, then that is fine.
He needs to stop claiming to be a Catholic, as this view does not reflect the RCC view of marriage.
I seem to recall him with ashes on his forehead during one of the State of the Union speeches several years ago.
He needs to decide which master he is going to serve - either the RCC of BHO. He cannot serve both.
-
He needs to decide which master he is going to serve - either the RCC of BHO. He cannot serve both.
Really?
As an elected official of the United States, his oath is to the people and the constitution. THOSE are the masters he serves, NOT the church. And if RCC members are going to decide that their loyalty is to the Vatican over and above everything else, then they shouldn't be putting themselves in a place where their loyalty is going to at odds with their position and shouldn't be running for the office of dog catcher, let alone the Vice President.
-
There is no constitutional right to a government licensed marriage.
A human right to be granted a license is an oxymoron.
We've been conditioned to get governmental permission to exorcise "our rights" on a whole host of issues.
-
Really?
As an elected official of the United States, his oath is to the people and the constitution. THOSE are the masters he serves, NOT the church. And if RCC members are going to decide that their loyalty is to the Vatican over and above everything else, then they shouldn't be putting themselves in a place where their loyalty is going to at odds with their position and shouldn't be running for the office of dog catcher, let alone the Vice President.
;/ Oh the noes persident kinnedy scary catholic politicians will enslave us to the Vatican!!!
'S funny. We hear so much complaining about politicians with no consciences. Then every once in a while, somebody tries to make it a virtue.
-
There is no constitutional right to a government licensed marriage.
A human right to be granted a license is an oxymoron.
We've been conditioned to get governmental permission to exorcise "our rights" on a whole host of issues.
I agree, but that says to me that the government has no say in who weds who. Is that your position?
-
I agree, but that says to me that the government has no say in who weds who. Is that your position?
Get government out of the marriage business all together.
Why is it normal for citizens to ask for the governments permission to get married? Isn't that what a license is? Asking permission to do what is otherwise not allowed or recognized as legal?
The reason there is even a battle over this issue is because folks invite the government into their bedroom when they ask the bureaucrats to put the governments blessing on their union.
My position is marriage is between a man and a woman, regardless of what judges, bureaucrats or the mob have to say.
Whatever the nature of the commitment between gay couples is, it is not marriage, by definition.
Get government out of marriage, gay folks should start their own institution and both groups would be served by not inviting the government as a legal party in their union.
I believe the idea of a marriage license should be done away with myself.
-
There is no constitutional right to a government licensed marriage.
Aye. Which means it is a state issue and none of the federal government's business.
-
;/ Oh the noes persident kinnedy scary catholic politicians will enslave us to the Vatican!!!
Eh, I'm not the one who brought up the "needs to choose who his masters are".
I'd have said the same damn thing if he was talking about Mormons, protestants, Buddhists, Scientologists, environmentalists or what have you. Elected officials need to have their priorities straight and understand who they're serving.
-
Eh, I'm not the one who brought up the "needs to choose who his masters are".
I'd have said the same damn thing if he was talking about Mormons, protestants, Buddhists, Scientologists, environmentalists or what have you. Elected officials need to have their priorities straight and understand who they're serving.
I seem to recall something forbidding a religious test in teh COTUS? But, with folks everywhere tearing out the bit they don;t like and pasting in crap at random, who knows, anymore.
-
Really?
As an elected official of the United States, his oath is to the people and the constitution. THOSE are the masters he serves, NOT the church. And if RCC members are going to decide that their loyalty is to the Vatican over and above everything else, then they shouldn't be putting themselves in a place where their loyalty is going to at odds with their position and shouldn't be running for the office of dog catcher, let alone the Vice President.
While you perhaps have a point on some level, I think Jaime B was referring to the following.
Personally I would argue that a person that has a true heart for Christ and submits to Him is probably more likely to leave the rest of us the heck alone (other than maybe trying to convince us to use our free will to choose as they have) than a busy-body liberal like Biden et al.
No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.
No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.
Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
-
Eh, I'm not the one who brought up the "needs to choose who his masters are".
I'd have said the same damn thing if he was talking about Mormons, protestants, Buddhists, Scientologists, environmentalists or what have you. Elected officials need to have their priorities straight and understand who they're serving.
Yes, we all have to decide where our priorities lie. But religion, by its nature, out-ranks everything else. That's kind of the point. It makes no sense at all to put Uncle Sam, or one's constituents, above God. Even the non-religious person can't be expected to go against his conscience for the will of the majority. To expect that would be to elevate group-think over individual choice.
Besides, let's keep in mind that Biden is not a representative of any constituency. He is a member of the executive branch, not the House of Representatives.
And lastly, I would be amiss not to quote old St. Peter: "We must obey God rather than men."
-
Get government out of the marriage business all together.
Why is it normal for citizens to ask for the governments permission to get married? Isn't that what a license is? Asking permission to do what is otherwise not allowed or recognized as legal?
The reason there is even a battle over this issue is because folks invite the government into their bedroom when they ask the bureaucrats to put the governments blessing on their union.
My position is marriage is between a man and a woman, regardless of what judges, bureaucrats or the mob have to say.
Whatever the nature of the commitment between gay couples is, it is not marriage, by definition.
Get government out of marriage, gay folks should start their own institution and both groups would be served by not inviting the government as a legal party in their union.
I believe the idea of a marriage license should be done away with myself.
I hear that refrain over & over again.
It sounds good.
But what do you do about property -- and especially when divorce happens? What about property acquired during marriage? Before the couple was married?
Settle it in court like we always do with these proplems.
Ooooooops. Government is right back into marriage ......again.
Government out of marrage? Ain't gonna happen. Sorry.
-
But what do you do about property -- and especially when divorce happens? What about property acquired during marriage? Before the couple was married?
Contracts.
Marriage existed, you know, even in societies with no government at all.
-
Personally I would argue that a person that has a true heart for Christ and submits to Him is probably more likely to leave the rest of us the heck alone (other than maybe trying to convince us to use our free will to choose as they have) than a busy-body liberal like Biden et al.
Deciding who can marry is leaving people alone while letting people marry whoever they want is being a busy body?
-
But what do you do about property -- and especially when divorce happens? What about property acquired during marriage? Before the couple was married?
Using this logic should we be required to get government dating licenses? What about breeding licenses?
-
Deciding who can marry is leaving people alone while letting people marry whoever they want is being a busy body?
I would contend that changing the meaning of marriage by legal decree and the legal consequences (not only possibly intended but also unintended) in relation to religious institutions is being a busy body.
For better or (as I contend) worse government is a party to modern marriage. Marriage is just another term that so called progressives and their institutional power are trying to redefine to mean the opposite of its original meaning. Look at the term "rights". Right to healthcare? right to a job? right to fair wage? The concept is bastardized to where the avg Joe has no concept what the concept of a human right really means historically. Oh, that's right, the meaning of words change, good by rights as we knew them!
Marriage has always been between males and females with the understanding that this is the foundation of the family unit.
Submitting to the government by asking for license to do something (marriage) relinquishes freedom. Submitting to government through incorporation (churches) relinquishes freedom.
-
Deciding who can marry is leaving people alone while letting people marry whoever they want is being a busy body?
Altering multi-millenia cultural traditions is.
-
Using this logic should we be required to get government dating licenses? What about breeding licenses?
Listen, if you have some realistic suggestion about how property difficulties could be addressed without "govt. involvement," then fine, I'll listen.
Because I am cynical and question the idea that we can (or should?) keep government out of marriage is not license to infer we should enact dating or breeding licenses. That's just silly.
Given how some parents are treating kids I'm sure there are people who think "breeding licenses" would be a good idea.
But even better would be to try to adopt some realistic and effective solution to these problems (if they indeed exist) rather than indulge in snide retorts.
-
Contracts.
Marriage existed, you know, even in societies with no government at all.
How many of those have there been? ??? [popcorn]
-
How many of those have there been? ??? [popcorn]
Tens of thousands, in cannabis-smoke-filled dorm rooms across the globe.
Then, folks sober up and get on with their lives.
-
license
The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct
The licensing process helps to control activity in a variety of ways. License application procedures allow government authorities to screen applicants to verify that they are fit to engage in the particular activity.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license
Marriage used to be considered a type of covenant, or a type of legal contract.
-
License application procedures allow government authorities to screen applicants to verify that they are fit to engage in the particular activity.
Okay ... that could get "interesting" relevant to a "marraige license" :O
-
Ron and Sumpnz, while it would certainly be a change, I don't see how the government letting any two consenting adults marry each other would affect your tradition. Thus I don't understand how it would be interfering with you. If when you say "leave everybody alone" you mean "don't change tradition", I can understand your use of the busy body term but still disagree with your position.
Ron, I certainly agree that the our usage of the term "rights" has been abused. But I don't understand your point. If you believe their is a right to marry* then shouldn't gays have that right too?
*BTW, I don't believe that we have a right to marry. I think marriage has three aspects: social, religious, and legal. Personally I think the first two are the ones that should matter. The living arrangements between people are their own, and it's up to their church and their community (however broad that may be) to accept or reject the "marriage. Obviously the government controls the legal part. In a perfect world it would not need a legal aspect, but in real life such matters as child custody, insurance, inheritence, etc need to be dealt with, so that will fall to the government. For that reason it only seems fair to deal with same sex unions the same as we do straight ones.
-
Listen, if you have some realistic suggestion about how property difficulties could be addressed without "govt. involvement," then fine, I'll listen.
Of course property disagreements such as those surrounding the dissolution of a marriage require a dispute resolution. This is sometimes done with non-governmental arbitration - even religious arbitration in some cases. In many cases this is done by involving the government through the courts. I'm not arguing against that, nor is anyone else in this thread that I'm aware of.
All of that is irrelevant. The point is that the existence (or not) of a marriage license issued by a government can be entirely independent from the role of the government in hashing out what happens to the fine silver after a marriage fails.
Because I am cynical and question the idea that we can (or should?) keep government out of marriage is not license to infer we should enact dating or breeding licenses. That's just silly.
You brought up the question of what happens to property after a marriage terminates and implied that the fact that government courts will get involved at that stage is some sort of defense of government licensing of marriage. Since courts can be involved in property disputes when non-marital partnerships dissolve, or when children are brought into the equation I don't see it as that much of a stretch at all to apply the same rationale to those situations.
Or were you arguing against the (as yet unargued) concept that if a situation in any way involves marriage that the government should never intervene? If so, I think you're missing the point about what most people mean when they say "get government out of marriage."
But even better would be to try to adopt some realistic and effective solution to these problems (if they indeed exist) rather than indulge in snide retorts.
Which problems are you specifically concerned with? The disposition of communal property at the termination of a marriage?
-
How many of those have there been? ??? [popcorn]
Viking-era Iceland comes to mind.
-
Viking-era Iceland comes to mind.
Well, that's one. You sure they didn't have a "council of elders" or some group to make decisions?
You brought up the question of what happens to property after a marriage terminates and implied that the fact that government courts will get involved at that stage is some sort of defense of government licensing of marriage. Since courts can be involved in property disputes when non-marital partnerships dissolve, or when children are brought into the equation I don't see it as that much of a stretch at all to apply the same rationale to those situations.
Well, I see it as a stretch....... ;)
You brought up the question of what happens to property after a marriage terminates and implied that the fact that government courts will get involved at that stage is some sort of defense of government licensing of marriage. Since courts can be involved in property disputes when non-marital partnerships dissolve, or when children are brought into the equation I don't see it as that much of a stretch at all to apply the same rationale to those situations.
Or were you arguing against the (as yet unargued) concept that if a situation in any way involves marriage that the government should never intervene? If so, I think you're missing the point about what most people mean when they say "get government out of marriage."
No, I don't think I am "missing the point," but I do wonder how much thought some other people give to it when they say government should "get out of marriage." It's a pretty sweeping statement, and as we see it can involve a lot esp. in the dissolution of a marriage.
I don't have a dog in this fight one way or another. I don't care if govt. is taken out of marriage to the degree you mean, or Microbalog, or others, but I see very general statements being made without (apparantly) thought being given to how reralistic it is, or what some consequences might be.
If that isn't true, fine.
Just really trying to provoke a little deeper thought than a meaningless battlecry "get the govt. out of ______." ;)
-
Whatever the nature of the commitment between gay couples is, it is not marriage, by definition.
Says who?
Not trying to be flippant, just asking. I've never heard marriage defined as anything other than two adults entering into a contract of sorts.
-
Says who?
Not trying to be flippant, just asking. I've never heard marriage defined as anything other than two adults entering into a contract of sorts.
No one believes for a minute that you are that ignorant. You know what marriage is.
-
No, I don't think I am "missing the point," but I do wonder how much thought some other people give to it when they say government should "get out of marriage." It's a pretty sweeping statement, and as we see it can involve a lot esp. in the dissolution of a marriage.
Perhaps I can't speak for everyone who believes in a more limited role for government, but my interpretation is typically "get the government out of defining marriage."
Just really trying to provoke a little deeper thought than a meaningless battlecry "get the govt. out of ______." ;)
Fair enough. It is a rare battle cry that fully explains an issue inside and out, but that doesn't take away from the issue itself.
-
Well, that's one. You sure they didn't have a "council of elders" or some group to make decisions?
They had an annual assembly called the Ting. They certainly were not a 100% anarchy, but then 100% Communism and 100% anarchism have never existed either, and yet we talk of the Soviet Union as being "Communist" and of the US as being "Capitalist". Neither you nor I are classroom anarchists, I fail to see the need to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The point is, for many, many years they had no taxes, no state officials, no police, and no marriage licenses.
So they're as close to an anarchy as actually can be done outside science fiction novels. And, observe, they had no tax benefits for married couples. They managed somehow.
-
No one believes for a minute that you are that ignorant. You know what marriage is.
Actually, that is exactly what I believe.
-
What about breeding licenses?
As long as there is a test. With several essay questions. 500 words or more. Spelling and grammar count.
-
Oh, and as an aside, the only time ANYONE has ask for my marriage license was when I reported in at Ft. McClellan for Officer Basic so they could cut orders so the WINO could join me in Germany at .gov expense.
No other employer ever asked (think health/medical insurance, etc.).
Not one. Never took it out of the file cabinet at home once.
-
Actually, that is exactly what I believe.
Oh, so you've decided to tell yourself that marriage isn't what it plainly is. I see.
-
Oh, so you've decided to tell yourself that marriage isn't what it plainly is. I see.
No, I decided that marriage is between two consenting adults. Government agencies, religous institutions, and internet commandos don't factor in.
You might not like it if it doesn't fit into your preconceived ideas, but that is how freedom works.
-
No, I decided that marriage is between two consenting adults. Government agencies, religous institutions, and internet commandos don't factor in.
You might not like it if it doesn't fit into your preconceived ideas, but that is how freedom works.
You can believe whatever you want, the problem comes in when you try and use the power of the state to make us accept your delusions.
-
As a married christian libertarian, I find it difficult to fathom how everyone gets so worked up about this. To me it seems rather simple, I am twice married in the eyes of two different institutions: God and the government. Almost 9 years ago I stood before God and all the earthly people I hold dear and I pledged my life to the woman who is now my wife, and she reciprocated, and we were then married.
After all that was said and done, we got together and we let the government know through legal documentation that we were now married and the government decided to grant us a specific tax status and various other considerations for whatever reasons it is that the government does the things which it does.
If people want the government to grant the same recognition to gays who pledge their life to each other, then I say more power to them. It doesn't affect me, and it doesn't affect my marriage, which is before God, not the IRS.
I might just as well get upset about straight couples who get married outside of a church. If a straight couple goes to a justice of the peace and pledge their life to each other, and receives some government benefit from it, am I as a christian supposed to be upset about that? I don't think so.
I used to be slightly offended by the mis-use of the term "marriage" in "gay marriage", but I don't even care about that anymore. Have you ever seen a car advertisement talk about "the marriage of beauty and power" or some such nonsense?
-
You can believe whatever you want, the problem comes in when you try and use the power of the state to make us accept your delusions.
On the contrary, I'm trying to remove the power of government. I'm in favor of more freedom, and more individual liberty, not telling people who they can or can not marry.
There is no effect on you if two consenting adults marry, regardless of their genders.
-
No, I decided that marriage is between two consenting adults. Government agencies, religous institutions, and internet commandos don't factor in.
You decided. You decided. Exactly. The idea that the theorizing of a random "internet commando" is more relevant to the question of marriage than mere governments or religions perfectly reflects the same-sex marriage position. You think that people can flagrantly outrage tradition, religion and society (through homosexual behavior), and then expect to be embraced by the traditions of the society their behavior mocks. Tradition be spat upon, until the spitters demand that it be applied to them. Sorry, you're not pulling that fast one on me.
If folk want to live a non-traditional lifestyle, I don't stand in their way. But don't out-rightly reject social norms and then claim that you deserve to be recognized by them. You're either in, or you're out. Either you want marriage or you don't. If you want to spend your life with someone of the same sex, go ahead. But that means you reject marriage. Live with it. That is how freedom works.
-
Totally unto itself gay marriage is not THAT huge of a problem. Gays that wished to, have lived in what is tantamount to marriage for a long time. I still don't think its a good idea, morally, to legitimize such behavior.
Regardless, the real issue as I see it is the leftists have taken on homosexuality as a pet cause in large part becuase it furthers their deliberate attempts to weaken/destroy the foundation of western civilizations so that they can more easily impose their socialist utopia on the rest of us.
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."
-
Regardless, the real issue as I see it is the leftists have taken on homosexuality as a pet cause in large part becuase it furthers their deliberate attempts to weaken/destroy the foundation of western civilizations so that they can more easily impose their socialist utopia on the rest of us.
Strange how over half the states have laws against same sex marraige but the same R's want the government out of "The peoples" private lives.
I guess we should just get rid of tax breaks and healthcare breaks for married couples all together. That would put an end to most of this argument.
Don't base laws on your religion. I believe in doing right because it is right, not because a book told me I would be stoned(And not in a good way.) if I offended God. I believe in myself. You don't want me making laws based on my religion.
jim
-
Traditions and social definitions are mutable.
You may imagine this as a massive parallelogram of forces, with every person and influential body pulling in various directions. Every time someone - including a "random Internet commando" starts using a different definition of "marriage", the general-cultural definition of it also changes, because that's just what the "general culture" is, the sum total of everyone else.
In this sense, the state agreeing to recognize something may contribute to this cultural shift (let's not be naive - every major institution contributes to the national culture by its action, including the military and the tax authorities), but so does every individual and this is a process you can neither stop nor fully control because controlling it is fully impossible.
-
Don't base laws on your religion.
That is a very bigoted thing to say. In a free country, religion is just as valid a source of law as anything else.
Besides, the marriage debate is not about religion. Our laws can deal with marriage as a social and legal institution, without bringing religion into it.
-
Traditions and social definitions are mutable.
This proves nothing about the current marriage debate, of course. The characteristics of marriage may be different from place to place, but that does not make it desirable to gut the very essence of marriage, as Fly320s wishes to do.
And of course, an appeal to infinitely mutable social definitions and traditions is no ground upon which to declare that marriage is "two adults entering into a contract," and therefore not sex-selective. If the institution can be twisted into anything we desire, then one view of marriage is as good as another. Appeals to justice, rights, equality or fairness are similarly invalid, being but traditions themselves.
-
You can believe whatever you want, the problem comes in when you try and use the power of the state to make us accept your delusions.
I'll be a little more polite.
Are you not trying to use the power of government to make us accept your delusions religious principles?
I get allergic when folks try to force religious precepts on people using the power of the government.
-
This proves nothing about the current marriage debate, of course. The characteristics of marriage may be different from place to place, but that does not make it desirable to gut the very essence of marriage, as Fly320s wishes to do.
And of course, an appeal to infinitely mutable social definitions and traditions is no ground upon which to declare that marriage is "two adults entering into a contract," and therefore not sex-selective. If the institution can be twisted into anything we desire, then one view of marriage is as good as another. Appeals to justice, rights, equality or fairness are similarly invalid, being but traditions themselves.
How did we decide what the "essence of marriage" is? What authority should we defer to in answering that question?
-
And of course, an appeal to infinitely mutable social definitions and traditions is no ground upon which to declare that marriage is "two adults entering into a contract," and therefore not sex-selective. If the institution can be twisted into anything we desire, then one view of marriage is as good as another. Appeals to justice, rights, equality or fairness are similarly invalid, being but traditions themselves.
So, why can we not have a culture war, and whoever wins, wins? :D
-
On the contrary, I'm trying to remove the power of government. I'm in favor of more freedom, and more individual liberty, not telling people who they can or can not marry.
There is no effect on you if two consenting adults marry, regardless of their genders.
If that were true I would let society take its course without saying anything. As the other thread on this subject pointed out, the normalization and equalization of homosexual relationships with marriage legally is the foot in the door to start attacking religious institutions using the court system.
-
I'll be a little more polite.
Are you not trying to use the power of government to make us accept your delusions religious principles?
I get allergic when folks try to force religious precepts on people using the power of the government.
You may want to study the whole history of human rights (you know the inalienable ones endowed to us from our creator) before you go trying to sever religious thought from influencing public policy.
Our civic ethic here in the USA has mirrored Christian morality to a greater or lessor extent from the beginning. To deny Christianity's effect on the common law and then our legal system is to deny reality.
All law is the imposing of someones morality.
-
Strange how over half the states have laws against same sex marraige but the same R's want the government out of "The peoples" private lives.
I guess we should just get rid of tax breaks and healthcare breaks for married couples all together. That would put an end to most of this argument.
Don't base laws on your religion. I believe in doing right because it is right, not because a book told me I would be stoned(And not in a good way.) if I offended God. I believe in myself. You don't want me making laws based on my religion.
jim
I believe in doing right because it is right, not because a book told me
That statement is nonsense Jim.
Don't base laws on your religion
Another basically nonsensical statement. The whole history of western philosophy is intertwined with Christian thought. You might as well advocate removing one lung and half your intestines as an improvement on the human body. It makes about as much sense.
"What is right", "believing in oneself" are philosophical and religious subjects, please do not introduce them into political arguments, heh heh.
-
You may want to study the whole history of human rights (you know the inalienable ones endowed to us from our creator) before you go trying to sever religious thought from influencing public policy.
Our civic ethic here in the USA has mirrored Christian morality to a greater or lessor extent from the beginning. To deny Christianity's effect on the common law and then our legal system is to deny reality.
All law is the imposing of someones morality.
Some of us consider them to be Natural Rights with out the need to provide an omnipotent source.
And no, I don't deny the influence of Judeo/Christian beliefs and ethics on our legal system though I don't agree with all of it.
I do get tickled though when the Christians insist that their brand of morality is the superior flavor and any differing opinion is delusional.
-
I’ll be darned, here I’ve been lead to believe that this whole thing was about people who wanted the same treatment as everybody else, and now I learn that it is Godless Communist secretly trying to bring down our government by pretending to be attracted to somebody of the same sex!
Sarcasm aside, this actually reminds me of the anti-witch laws a few centuries ago. “After all they had to be evil because they were not like us.”
-
I'll be darned, here I've been lead to believe that this whole thing was about people who wanted the same treatment as everybody else,
If that was what you were led to believe, you were lied to.
It is about using the force of government against those who don't treat them they way they want to be treated. As I've said many times, this issue alone makes it clear that libertarians care more about "fairness" than they do about "liberty."
-
If that was what you were led to believe, you were lied to.
It is about using the force of government against those who don't treat them they way they want to be treated. As I've said many times, this issue alone makes it clear that libertarians care more about "fairness" than they do about "liberty."
A lack of liberty is sort of inherently unfair.
-
A lack of liberty is sort of inherently unfair.
Apparently not if that denial of liberty is based on the one true religion.
-
The words "liberty" and "freedom" do not mean you have the power to restrict other people (even the ones that make you feel uneasy) from doing things that don't harm you. This is the same logical fallacy as when gun control proponents say that outlawing full capacity magazines will give them the freedom from getting shot 11 times without the assailant reloading.
-
The words "liberty" and "freedom" do not mean you have the power to restrict other people (even the ones that make you feel uneasy) from doing things that don't harm you. This is the same logical fallacy as when gun control proponents say that outlawing full capacity magazines will give them the freedom from getting shot 11 times without the assailant reloading.
And those arguing for Government enforced gay marriage are the same as gun control opponents saying that all we want is a REGISTRY so we know who has a gun. We don't want to confiscate your guns, NOOOO!!!
The purpose of government sanctioned marriage is to use the force of government as a bludgeon against those who do not grant the symbols of acceptance to homosexual relationships. Many of the so-called libertarians on this very site will freely admit that.
-
The purpose of government sanctioned marriage is to use the force of government as a bludgeon against those who do not grant the symbols of acceptance to homosexual relationships. Many of the so-called libertarians on this very site will freely admit that.
I don't think you understand this: The supporters of gay marriage are a disparate group of people with various ends.
In the same way as the supporters of gun rights are a disparate group of people with various ends.
Some supporters of gay marriage are socialists who no doubt want to also force churches to marry gay people, and others don't.
-
I don't think you understand this: The supporters of gay marriage are a disparate group of people with various ends.
In the same way as the supporters of gun rights are a disparate group of people with various ends.
Some supporters of gay marriage are socialists who no doubt want to also force churches to marry gay people, and others don't.
Your "preferences" aside, if the state grants "marriage" licenses to homosexual couples, will the force of the state be used against companies that refuse to provide "marital benefits" to homosexuals that have a government license (or other companies that similarly refuse to service homosexual unions)? Yes or no?
-
If that were true I would let society take its course without saying anything. As the other thread on this subject pointed out, the normalization and equalization of homosexual relationships with marriage legally is the foot in the door to start attacking religious institutions using the court system.
I haven't read that whole thread, so my question may have been answered. How does requiring the government to recognize same-sex marriages equate to an attack of religious institutions?
-
I haven't read that whole thread, so my question may have been answered. How does requiring the government to recognize same-sex marriages equate to an attack of religious institutions?
Your "preferences" aside, if the state grants "marriage" licenses to homosexual couples, will the force of the state be used against companies that refuse to provide "marital benefits" to homosexuals that have a government license (or other companies that similarly refuse to service homosexual unions)? Yes or no?
-
Your "preferences" aside, if the state grants "marriage" licenses to homosexual couples, will the force of the state be used against companies that refuse to provide "marital benefits" to homosexuals that have a government license (or other companies that similarly refuse to service homosexual unions)? Yes or no?
Are those companies currently required by law to offer those benefits to spouses? That should be the litmus test.
Frankly, I think health insurance and other employee benefits should be left entirely to the company to decide how to offer to employees. Get the government out of area, too.
-
And, just as we can point to England and Australia for what the results of gun control will be (i.e. it only starts with registration...), we can point to Europe and Canada for what the results of gay "marriage" will be. (i.e. it only starts with government recognition.)
So please, tell me how these slippery slope arguments are SO FAR OFF BASE while the gun control slippery slope arguments aren't?
-
Are those companies currently required by law to offer those benefits to spouses? That should be the litmus test.
Frankly, I think health insurance and other employee benefits should be left entirely to the company to decide how to offer to employees. Get the government out of area, too.
That's great that you prefer the government not to control a company's decision. Your "preferences" are not what the current state of the world is.
-
How did we decide what the "essence of marriage" is? What authority should we defer to in answering that question?
What is essence?
What is authority?
Pretending not to understand basic concepts; where would the irrational marriage movement be without it?!
-
The words "liberty" and "freedom" do not mean you have the power to restrict other people (even the ones that make you feel uneasy) from doing things that don't harm you.
So government failing to recognize non-marriages - this is restricting people, in your fevered imagination?
It's precisely because homosexual relationships do not effect you or me that makes legal recognition of them so brainless.
-
And, just as we can point to England and Australia for what the results of gun control will be (i.e. it only starts with registration...), we can point to Europe and Canada for what the results of gay "marriage" will be. (i.e. it only starts with government recognition.)
So please, tell me how these slippery slope arguments are SO FAR OFF BASE while the gun control slippery slope arguments aren't?
It is the same all over. This country is slowly sliding to the left. People are becoming less responsible for themselves and more willing to let others tell them how to lead their lives. That said, I think gay marriage actually expands freedom, which is a right-leaning idea.
-
So government failing to recognize non-marriages - this is restricting people, in your fevered imagination?
It's precisely because homosexual relationships do not effect you or me that makes legal recognition of them so brainless harmless.
Fixed it for you.
-
And, just as we can point to England and Australia for what the results of gun control will be (i.e. it only starts with registration...), we can point to Europe and Canada for what the results of gay "marriage" will be. (i.e. it only starts with government recognition.)
So please, tell me how these slippery slope arguments are SO FAR OFF BASE while the gun control slippery slope arguments aren't?
I haven't heard of Europe or Canada sliding in to extra gayness. What did I miss?
-
It is the same all over. This country is slowly sliding to the left. People are becoming less responsible for themselves and more willing to let others tell them how to lead their lives. That said, I think gay marriage actually expands freedom, which is a right-leaning idea.
Then you are either totally ignorant or completely disingenuous in your preference for "freedom".
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/05/137622143/illinois-catholic-agencies-at-odds-over-gay-adoptions
Freedom!! (And before you spout about the "no right to government funds", adoption cannot be run in Illinois without the sanction of the state. This is another of those what you "prefer" and what the state of the world really is problems.)
-
I haven't heard of Europe or Canada sliding in to extra gayness. What did I miss?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2007/11/30/boissoin-ruling.html
Canadian pastor is jailed for calling the homosexual agenda "wicked" in a letter to the editor. But that's OK, he was violating gay people's human rights not to ever hear anyone criticize their lifestyle.
-
I haven't heard of Europe or Canada sliding in to extra gayness. What did I miss?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
The link gives the explanation as well.
-
Then you are either totally ignorant or completely disingenuous in your preference for "freedom".
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/05/137622143/illinois-catholic-agencies-at-odds-over-gay-adoptions
Freedom!! (And before you spout about the "no right to government funds", adoption cannot be run in Illinois without the sanction of the state. This is another of those what you "prefer" and what the state of the world really is problems.)
Those two articles are the exact definition of freedom. The churches are free to choose who they associate with. They have freely chosen to not support adoptions because of their beliefs. They are not being forced to support adoptions.
-
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2004/jul/04070505
Swedish pastor imprisoned for criticizing the homosexual lifestyle.
-
Those two articles are the exact definition of freedom. The churches are free to choose who they associate with. They have freely chosen to not support adoptions because of their beliefs. They are not being forced to support adoptions.
Wow... I'm in awe of the mental gymnastics it must have taken to get to that position.
-
Your "preferences" aside, if the state grants "marriage" licenses to homosexual couples, will the force of the state be used against companies that refuse to provide "marital benefits" to homosexuals that have a government license (or other companies that similarly refuse to service homosexual unions)? Yes or no?
It might. In a European welfare state you would be completely right, but America is not a European welfare state.
Also, a ban on discrimination of homosexuals by, say, restaurants is not the same (although also wrong) as an attempt to force churches to marry gay people.
This is in the same way in which there exist various (immoral and unconstitutional) limits on discrimination by private people, but they do not regularly apply to churches.
But, again, what you state will happen is not necessarily a foregone conclusion, just like gun registration does not always lead to confiscation. Just as gun registration may lead to confiscation, or it may be repealed altogether (like in Canada).
-
It might. In a European welfare state you would be completely right, but America is not a European welfare state.
Also, a ban on discrimination of homosexuals by, say, restaurants is not the same (although also wrong) as an attempt to force churches to marry gay people.
This is in the same way in which there exist various (immoral and unconstitutional) limits on discrimination by private people, but they do not regularly apply to churches.
But, again, what you state will happen is not necessarily a foregone conclusion, just like gun registration does not always lead to confiscation. Just as gun registration may lead to confiscation, or it may be repealed altogether (like in Canada).
Alright, then what about the photographer in New Mexico sued for declining to photograph a gay wedding. It does not even yet have legal imprimatur, but she is being sued for her religious convictions?
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/357084.aspx
Or does the First Amendment only apply to churches? "You can believe what you want, just keep it hidden away in a church. You can't bring that stuff out in public!"
-
Alright, then what about the photographer in New Mexico sued for declining to photograph a gay wedding. It does not even yet have legal imprimatur, but she is being sued for her religious convictions?
Sorry, leaped before I looked. Disregard.
OK, I read the article. I am surprised, but not shocked, that the photographer lost the case.
This brings up the question: Who can businesses legally discriminate against? As far as I'm concerned, a private business can discriminate against whoever they want. The government, on the other hand, must treat everyone equally under the law. So, in this case, the photographer can decline to work for the gay couple, but the government should recognize their marriage since NM allows for it.
-
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/357084.aspx
The other ones didn't seem to apply because if hate speech was illegal in this country then Fred Phelps would have been locked up several times over. But this one surprised me. Public accommodation? That's pretty tricky, good point.
-
As far as I'm concerned, a private business can discriminate against whoever they want. The government, on the other hand, must treat everyone equally under the law. So, in this case, the photographer can decline to work for the gay couple, but the government should recognize their marriage since NM allows for it.
That's definitely the way it should work.
-
Sorry, leaped before I looked. Disregard.
OK, I read the article. I am surprised, but not shocked, that the photographer lost the case.
This brings up the question: Who can businesses legally discriminate against? As far as I'm concerned, a private business can discriminate against whoever they want. The government, on the other hand, must treat everyone equally under the law. So, in this case, the photographer can decline to work for the gay couple, but the government should recognize their marriage since NM allows for it.
As far as I am concerned, I would rather businesses discriminate as they wish, that whole "freedom of association" right should include whom you want in your business.
However, as that is not the way our government currently works, gay marriage will be used as a bludgeon against religious people who have objections to their lifestyle. Your "freedom" position is hollow as this unenumerated "right" that you want to grant to homosexuals will be used (and this is part of the goal of most homosexual "marriage" supporters) to limit the religious freedom of Christians (and others who object to homosexuality.)
-
However, as that is not the way our government currently works, gay marriage will be used as a bludgeon against religious people who have objections to their lifestyle. Your "freedom" position is hollow as this unenumerated "right" that you want to grant to homosexuals will be used (and this is part of the goal of most homosexual "marriage" supporters) to limit the religious freedom of Christians (and others who object to homosexuality.)
That is fine with the folks who hate the Christians more than they love liberty and who would like to expand gov't whilst simultaneously limiting freedom of association, freedom of speech, and religious liberty. "Libertarian" some call themselves.
And just goes to show that the dying of Christianity in a country pretty much coincides with a slide toward statism and loss of the real liberties (which are replaced with a mess of pottage). All one has to do is read a little history to see it plain as day.
Not to worry, the godless non-marriage hucksters will join the icky Christians soon after we're slapped down by the agents of gov't for expressing our religious convictions. Because it will be used as a precedent for further encroachments on liberty.
-
Alright, then what about the photographer in New Mexico sued for declining to photograph a gay wedding. It does not even yet have legal imprimatur, but she is being sued for her religious convictions?
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/357084.aspx
The plural of anecdote does not make data, does it?
Or does the First Amendment only apply to churches? "You can believe what you want, just keep it hidden away in a church. You can't bring that stuff out in public!"
So do you agree with me that we should not have any laws regarding discriminations, and employers should be able to fire people for carrying guns, or having them in their cars, or being Christians, or being black?
If and when we abolish these things I will happily agree with you. But in the context in which conservatives - indeed some of the very conservatives posting in this thread (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=33823.msg676959#msg676959) endorse these laws: sauce, goose, gander.
-
What is essence?
What is authority?
Pretending not to understand basic concepts; where would the irrational marriage movement be without it?!
See, I noticed there that you didn't explain why we all have to accept your assertion about marriage.
We all understand the concept - the problem for you is that half the country does not share your view about what is the "essence of marriage.". You're going to have to explain why your assertion matters more than any other.
-
See, I noticed there that you didn't explain why we all have to accept your assertion about marriage.
We all understand the concept - the problem for you is that half the country does not share your view about what is the "essence of marriage.". You're going to have to explain why your assertion matters more than any other.
For hundreds of years in the west we have built up a jurisprudence around the legal meaning of marriage that revolved around man + woman and generally their offspring.
Deciding by fiat to shoehorn same sex couplings into thousands of years of cultural understanding of what marriage is and somehow attempt to make the legal system constructed around normal heterosexual relationships try and apply to something that is not the same is just plain crazy.
Words have meaning.
The gay agenda acknowledges this by insisting that there is no difference between gay relationships and normal relationships. That is why they insist on usurping the institution of marriage. They are looking for societal approval and acceptance. They don't want to be considered different, despite the obvious.
-
For hundreds of years in the west we have built up a jurisprudence around the legal meaning of marriage that revolved around man + woman and generally their offspring.
Also for hundreds of years in the west we had a jurisprudence accepting slavery. And until 1967 interracial marriage was illegal in many states as well as condemned by the church as a sin against god. That didn't make it right though.
-
Also for hundreds of years in the west we had a jurisprudence accepting slavery. And until 1967 interracial marriage was illegal in many states as well as condemned by the church as a sin against god. That didn't make it right though.
And that analogy is accurate because gov't not recognizing a relationship which will have no issue and thus diminished significance is the equivalent of racial discrimination & slavery? I think you need a new moral compass, 'cause yours is broke.
Also, maybe you ought to put that question to the folks who were legally discriminated against a few decades back and whose ancestors were slaves? When they did in 2008 in California, the vast majority of black folks did not agree with your formulation.
-
And that analogy is accurate because gov't not recognizing a relationship which will have no issue and thus diminished significance is the equivalent of racial discrimination & slavery? I think you need a new moral compass, 'cause yours is broke.
Also, maybe you ought to put that question to the folks who were legally discriminated against a few decades back and whose ancestors were slaves? When they did in 2008 in California, the vast majority of black folks did not agree with your formulation.
Why is it relevant that their ancestors were slaves?
Having your ancestors experienced slavery - indeed having experienced incredible suffering yourself - does not make you an inviolable moral authority.
-
For hundreds of years in the west we have built up a jurisprudence around the legal meaning of marriage that revolved around man + woman and generally their offspring.
Deciding by fiat to shoehorn same sex couplings into thousands of years of cultural understanding of what marriage is and somehow attempt to make the legal system constructed around normal heterosexual relationships try and apply to something that is not the same is just plain crazy.
Words have meaning.
The gay agenda acknowledges this by insisting that there is no difference between gay relationships and normal relationships. That is why they insist on usurping the institution of marriage. They are looking for societal approval and acceptance. They don't want to be considered different, despite the obvious.
Uh, what is it that makes applying the laws of marriage to same sex couples shoe horning??? Seriously, how is saying, as the law already does, that two people together will have a series of legal entitlements with regard to each other, create a problem if you don't specify the sex of the two people?
-
Uh, what is it that makes applying the laws of marriage to same sex couples polygamists shoe horning??? Seriously, how is saying, as the law already does, that two any people together will have a series of legal entitlements with regard to each other, create a problem if you don't specify the sex number of the two people?
Equally valid argument.
If you aren't opposed to polygamy, polyamory, or line marriages (as I know Micro is not), you aren't a hypocrit. Otherwise, if it is no problem to ignore the sex of persons involved in a marriage, under what logical and legal reasoning can you deny a greater number of persons in a marriage.
At least with polygamy, we have a significant amount of history for the legality of such marriages AND they still provide the likelihood (strong likelihood) of producing progeny. Homosexual "marriages" have neither of those arguments in favor.
-
Yeah, so favoring progeny is your standard? That's very different from saying the administration of gay marriages is too different to fit into the law. Indeed, it'd seem to be no different from managing a childless couple. And how does recognizing gay marriage have any effect on progeny? Do you honestly beleive that gay folk will choose to marry straight solely because of the law, or do you want to stigmatize gay people into portending they're straight? Without it being a part of a campaign to demonize and shame gays, I can't see any rational relationship at all between outlawing same sex marriage and proving reading child birth.
I agree with your point about polygamy, by the way - why should we be telling people they can't enter plural relationships???
-
Yeah, so favoring progeny is your standard? That's very different from saying the administration of gay marriages is too different to fit into the law. Indeed, it'd seem to be no different from managing a childless couple. And how does recognizing gay marriage have any effect on progeny? Do you honestly beleive that gay folk will choose to marry straight solely because of the law, or do you want to stigmatize gay people into portending they're straight? Without it being a part of a campaign to demonize and shame gays, I can't see any rational relationship at all between outlawing same sex marriage and proving reading child birth.
I agree with your point about polygamy, by the way - why should we be telling people they can't enter plural relationships???
My argument, if you happen to have read this thread is that the purpose of gay marriage is to use the force of government as a bludgeon (see if you can find those exact words, already, multiple times in this thread) against those who do not freely grant them social approbation.
My argument, FURTHER, is that monogamous, heterosexual couples that have made a lifetime committment (which was foolishly weakened with "no-fault divorce) provide externalities to society that the government wishes to encourage. Among these is progeny and the most beneficial environment for raising children. That some heterosexual couples choose not to raise children or are unable to raise them is sad, but the invasion of privacy necessary to determine such information is not only unconstitutional, it likely costs far more to collect than the "savings" of not granting them the same benefits.
Homosexual couplings cannot provide those externalities, so there is no reason to grant them those benefits especially when the purpose of government sanction is to attack religious liberty.
-
especially when the purpose of government sanction is to attack religious liberty.
I still don't understand how allowing gay marriage is an attack on religious liberty. Can you expound on that?
-
I still don't understand how allowing gay marriage is an attack on religious liberty. Can you expound on that?
Companies will be sued for choosing not to offer benefits to gay couples. Religious service organizations will be sued (or driven out of their ministry) for refusing to adopt a baby to a gay couple. Religous contractors will be sued for choosing not to bake a cake or photograph gay "wedding" ceremonies. Churches will be sued for choosing not to rent their building out to homosexual couples for their "weddings".
And I can safely make these predictions because other than the first statement, every single one of these have already happened before the government sanctions gay "marriage".
As for the requirement to offer the same benefits to gay couples, is there any doubt that a similar administration to the one currently in office that is forcing religious charities to offer abortofacients to their employees in contravention of their religious beliefs would even blink about forcing companies to treat gay couples the same way as straight couples?
This isn't a difficult concept: it is already happening.
-
Once again, polygamy is brought up as part of the slippery slope.
Can someone coherently explain to me why it is somehow presented as a bad thing? It certainly can and often does produce children. The environment is beneficial to them as there are more people in close proximity to take care of them. It is traditional, having been practiced for thousands of years. It's in the Bible. Heck, in this economy it probably makes financial sense. What's wrong with it? Besides the difficulty of finding another woman that would put up with you and the whole multiple mother-in-law thing, that is.
-
Once again, polygamy is brought up as part of the slippery slope.
Can someone coherently explain to me why it is somehow presented as a bad thing? It certainly can and often does produce children. The environment is beneficial to them as there are more people in close proximity to take care of them. It is traditional, having been practiced for thousands of years. It's in the Bible. Heck, in this economy it probably makes financial sense. What's wrong with it? Besides the difficulty of finding another woman that would put up with you and the whole multiple mother-in-law thing, that is.
The West rejected polygamy for many reasons, one of the most important is that polygamist families are not as stable as monogamous. (Not that they break up but that tensions and rivalries between wives and their progeny are almost a given, human nature being what it is.)
However, my point was not slippery slope but logic. If the sex of the persons in a marriage is unimportant, then why is the number. As I said before, if you, like Micro, believe that polygamy is just as acceptable as gay "marriage" then you have no logical flaw.
I will also note for you that polygamy is actively BANNED in this country, not unsanctioned as gay "marriage" is.
-
Once again, polygamy is brought up as part of the slippery slope.
Can someone coherently explain to me why it is somehow presented as a bad thing? It certainly can and often does produce children. The environment is beneficial to them as there are more people in close proximity to take care of them. It is traditional, having been practiced for thousands of years. It's in the Bible. Heck, in this economy it probably makes financial sense. What's wrong with it? Besides the difficulty of finding another woman that would put up with you and the whole multiple mother-in-law thing, that is.
Problems like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism)
A bunch of disaffected young men make great revolution fodder. Gang fodder, too. Smart governments ban the practice to minimize these problems.
-
Problems like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism)
A bunch of disaffected young men make great revolution fodder. Gang fodder, too. Smart governments ban the practice to minimize these problems.
And China is looking at a generation or two where girls were selectively aborted, severely skewing the sex ratios. Usually, this leads to capital-T trouble, like revolution, wars, etc.
-
Why is it relevant that their ancestors were slaves?
Having your ancestors experienced slavery - indeed having experienced incredible suffering yourself - does not make you an inviolable moral authority.
RKL brought up the faulty analogy, not I. Talk to him about it.
But, if RKL thinks the analogy is somehow cogent, how is asking those who, in living memory, lived through segregation (and might have known grandparents who were slaves) not cogent?
IMO, equating the two is perverse.
-
As I said before, if you, like Micro, believe that polygamy is just as acceptable as gay "marriage" then you have no logical flaw.
I have no problem with it being legal for any number of people to enter into whatever kind of mutually agreeable romantic, sexual or financial agreement they like and call it marriage if they so choose.
I do, however, have a problem with the government stepping into the situation and attempting to force business, churches, etc. to recognize such agreements.
-
RKL brought up the faulty analogy, not I. Talk to him about it.
But, if RKL thinks the analogy is somehow cogent, how is asking those who, in living memory, lived through segregation (and might have known grandparents who were slaves) not cogent?
IMO, equating the two is perverse.
My point was that not everything covered by historic jurisprudence or long standing social standards are necessarily "right".
-
The West rejected polygamy for many reasons, one of the most important is that polygamist families are not as stable as monogamous. (Not that they break up but that tensions and rivalries between wives and their progeny are almost a given, human nature being what it is.)
Given what I know of familial tensions in the families we have today that seems pretty flimsy. There is a reason why relatives are the first to make the suspect list in murder investigations.
However, my point was not slippery slope but logic. If the sex of the persons in a marriage is unimportant, then why is the number. As I said before, if you, like Micro, believe that polygamy is just as acceptable as gay "marriage" then you have no logical flaw.
I have no logical flaw, then.
Problems like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism)
A bunch of disaffected young men make great revolution fodder. Gang fodder, too. Smart governments ban the practice to minimize these problems.
I don't know enough about this to say something definite, but seems to me that this is limited to small communities with strict rules. I see they are "expected" to have at least three wives, where we are talking about allowing rather than requiring.
And China is looking at a generation or two where girls were selectively aborted, severely skewing the sex ratios. Usually, this leads to capital-T trouble, like revolution, wars, etc.
What does this have to do with, erm, the price of tea in China? Or anything in this thread? If anything, polygamy would likely cut down on abortions, since there would be less reason to hide extra relationships.
-
See, I noticed there that you didn't explain why we all have to accept your assertion about marriage.
We all understand the concept - the problem for you is that half the country does not share your view about what is the "essence of marriage.". You're going to have to explain why your assertion matters more than any other.
Sorry, sunshine. You're the one proposing that our government(s) fall in line with some kooky idea dreamed up from out of nowhere. Your place is not to demand explanations from us sane folk - your place is to provide them. 'Cause it sounds like you're proposing a very bizarre solution to a problem that ain't there.
-
Sorry, sunshine. You're the one proposing that our government(s) fall in line with some kooky idea dreamed up from out of nowhere. Your place is not to demand explanations from us sane folk - your place is to provide them. 'Cause it sounds like you're proposing a very bizarre solution to a problem that ain't there.
That "kooky idea" is freedom.
-
Fixed it for you.
So "gay marriages" would be harmless. And?
-
That "kooky idea" is freedom.
See, I noticed there that you didn't explain why we all have to accept your assertion about freedom.
We all understand the concept - the problem for you is that half the country does not share your view about what is freedom. You're going to have to explain why your assertion matters more than any other.
-
So "gay marriages" would be harmless. And?
I sense we have a massive moral chasm between us.
-
Sorry, sunshine. You're the one proposing that our government(s) fall in line with some kooky idea dreamed up from out of nowhere. Your place is not to demand explanations from us sane folk - your place is to provide them. 'Cause it sounds like you're proposing a very bizarre solution to a problem that ain't there.
In other words, you'd rather just repeat the assertion and hope enough people agree with it to maintain the status quo. That's not a recipe for liberty.
-
My argument, if you happen to have read this thread is that the purpose of gay marriage is to use the force of government as a bludgeon (see if you can find those exact words, already, multiple times in this thread) against those who do not freely grant them social approbation.
Aren't all laws really the government using force against those who disagree with the law?
-
Aren't all laws really the government using force against those who disagree with the law?
Absolutely
Hence the reason you should tread lightly when you are talking about enfranchising a whole new category of relationship into an institution (marriage) that will impact economics (insurance) and religion (according to gay activist stated goals). The intended and unintended consequences of this emotional feel good type legislation are not known.
We can only surmise insurance will go up even more and some activists will use lawful gay marriage as the next stepping stone in their attack on traditional Christianities stand against homosexual activity.
-
Very good question Griz. Mak, how does granting same sex couples a set of legal rights towards each other force you to accept it? If you mean it prohibits the state from discriminating against them, that's what the debate should be about. You want the state to use its power to favour some couples over others because you think the state has some moral investment in "recognizing the value of progeny."
I think it's a lot more clearly anti-freedom when you look at the policy for what it is.
-
Aren't all laws really the government using force against those who disagree with the law?
This is hardly true.
For example, laws specifically limiting government activity (say, the activity of police) or prohibiting state governments from discriminating against certain groups, or term limit laws.
-
This is hardly true.
For example, laws specifically limiting government activity (say, the activity of police) or prohibiting state governments from discriminating against certain groups, or term limit laws.
Ultimately though the laws are enforced at the point of a gun if one was to push back enough.
-
Once again, polygamy is brought up as part of the slippery slope.
Can someone coherently explain to me why it is somehow presented as a bad thing? It certainly can and often does produce children. The environment is beneficial to them as there are more people in close proximity to take care of them. It is traditional, having been practiced for thousands of years. It's in the Bible. Heck, in this economy it probably makes financial sense. What's wrong with it? Besides the difficulty of finding another woman that would put up with you and the whole multiple mother-in-law thing, that is.
Yep. Polygamy sure is described in the Bible. And nearly always in a light that's not exactly favorable. It's not always condemmed outright (esp in the OT), but it is not held up as a desirable standard. And in the NT, particularly the Epistles, it pretty clearly makes the case that monogamous heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable arraingement for those that do not choose celibacy.
-
I sense we have a massive moral chasm between us.
I sense you're not paying attention. I haven't based my point of view on some harm to society from homosexual relationships. I've said that their lack of consequence makes them a merely private affair which government need not recognize.
In other words, you'd rather just repeat the assertion and hope enough people agree with it to maintain the status quo. That's not a recipe for liberty.
See, I noticed there that you didn't explain why we all have to accept your assertion about liberty.
We all understand the concept - the problem for you is that half the country does not share your view about what is liberty. You're going to have to explain why your assertion matters more than any other.
I also noticed that you didn't explain how your second specious claim follows from your first. Your first specious claim, that is.
But, yes, I certainly hope we can find enough people to agree that marriage is what it is. I hope we can find enough people who agree that water is wet. I'd prefer not to live in a polity where any legal or political goal, no matter how bizarre, can be brought about by people like yourself repeating inane assertions, then branding any dissenters as deniers of equal rights, bigots, etc. Then you demand that we prove our assertion that water is wet. It's tiresome.
-
I sense you're not paying attention. I haven't based my point of view on some harm to society from homosexual relationships. I've said that their lack of consequence makes them a merely private affair which government need not recognize.
Perhaps you fail to understand my viewpoint.
As far as I am concerned, the question should not be "is it beneficial.". I do not think the role of the government is to
We all understand the concept - the problem for you is that half the country does not share your view about what is liberty. You're going to have to explain why your assertion matters more than any other.
So you hate states' powers, I take it?
-
Very good question Griz. Mak, how does granting same sex couples a set of legal rights towards each other force you to accept it? If you mean it prohibits the state from discriminating against them, that's what the debate should be about. You want the state to use its power to favour some couples over others because you think the state has some moral investment in "recognizing the value of progeny."
I think it's a lot more clearly anti-freedom when you look at the policy for what it is.
Companies will be sued for choosing not to offer benefits to gay couples. Religious service organizations will be sued (or driven out of their ministry) for refusing to adopt a baby to a gay couple. Religous contractors will be sued for choosing not to bake a cake or photograph gay "wedding" ceremonies. Churches will be sued for choosing not to rent their building out to homosexual couples for their "weddings".
And I can safely make these predictions because other than the first statement, every single one of these have already happened before the government sanctions gay "marriage".
As for the requirement to offer the same benefits to gay couples, is there any doubt that a similar administration to the one currently in office that is forcing religious charities to offer abortofacients to their employees in contravention of their religious beliefs would even blink about forcing companies to treat gay couples the same way as straight couples?
This isn't a difficult concept: it is already happening.
And please don't try to claim this won't happen. You will be the first to argue that companies HAVE to provide gay couples marital benefits under the equal protection clause, given your arguments in favor of forcing ministries to provide abortofacients.
-
Tell you what. For those of you who are either ignoring or simply don't believe my contention that religious liberty will be curtailed by gay "marriage":
We all know that a gun registration has absolutely no chance of leading to confiscation, I mean look how scared the Democrats are of gun rights now.
It would also make the anti's feel better to know the government is keeping track of all the guns. Yes, it might be a little costly, but it would make them feel better, so I'm sure it's worth it. After all, there's no harm since we know the government won't be confiscating our arms.
And, if by some miracle, the liberals get a filibuster proof Senate and the House and the Presidency (good thing we know this can't happen) and decide to make us turn in our guns, well... I'll feel really bad about it.
-
Tell you what. For those of you who are either ignoring or simply don't believe my contention that religious liberty will be curtailed by gay "marriage":
We all know that a gun registration has absolutely no chance of leading to confiscation, I mean look how scared the Democrats are of gun rights now.
It would also make the anti's feel better to know the government is keeping track of all the guns. Yes, it might be a little costly, but it would make them feel better, so I'm sure it's worth it. After all, there's no harm since we know the government won't be confiscating our arms.
And, if by some miracle, the liberals get a filibuster proof Senate and the House and the Presidency (good thing we know this can't happen) and decide to make us turn in our guns, well... I'll feel really bad about it.
I think you're comparing a negative law to a positive law, for lack of better terms. The gun registration is a negative law: it is a restriction on an act. Gay marriage is a positive law: it removes a restriction on an act.
I agree that there will be people who attempt to force businesses to offer benefits to gay couples. That is always a problem: the left wants socialized everything. Hell, a large part of the right wants "free" health care. The only way to stop this push is to get people to become self-responsible. In today's society, you'll have better luck teaching frogs to fly.
The fight needs to be directed towards protecting the rights (authority) of the businesses and organizations to offer or not offer benefits and compensation as they see fit. If business is protected like a church, in regards to how they associate with people, then gay marriage will affect no one.
-
I think you're comparing a negative law to a positive law, for lack of better terms. The gun registration is a negative law: it is a restriction on an act. Gay marriage is a positive law: it removes a restriction on an act.
Er, no. Gays can go to whatever whacked out church they want and have the unholy man bless their nuptials. What you want is to force others to recognize them with violence/gov't, a "negative" act by your reckoning.
And you also know that it will erode freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech.
Yeah, yours is the "liberty" position, for sure. The first amendment is so passe.
-
Er, no. Gays can go to whatever whacked out church they want and have the unholy man bless their nuptials. What you want is to force others to recognize them with violence/gov't, a "negative" act by your reckoning.
And you also know that it will erode freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech.
Yeah, yours is the "liberty" position, for sure. The first amendment is so passe.
1. What makes "their" church not as good as yours? There seems to be many gays in the Catholic Church.
2. So, if from Day One, God or Jesus had said that homosexuality is OK, would you oppose gay marriage today? Aren't all of God's children loved equally?
3. Gay marriage won't erode those freedoms, people who can't live and let live will. If the liberals that are pushing this agenda would allow churches and businesses to run their own affairs, gay marriage wouldn't be an issue to anyone but the gays.
-
1. What makes "their" church not as good as yours? There seems to be many gays in the Catholic Church.
They aren't married in or by the Catholic Church. And we are all sinners, gay or not. We just aren't supposed to celebrate sin.
2. So, if from Day One, God or Jesus had said that homosexuality is OK, would you oppose gay marriage today? Aren't all of God's children loved equally?
God loves everyone. He hates sin though. If God created us differently so that it were not totally illogical and had Jesus blessed homosexuality, I would not be personally opposed to it, but if other religions still condemned it, I would oppose it on exactly the same grounds that this is a thinly veiled attack on religious liberty.
3. Gay marriage won't erode those freedoms, people who can't live and let live will. If the liberals that are pushing this agenda would allow churches and businesses to run their own affairs, gay marriage wouldn't be an issue to anyone but the gays.
And if your aunt had ____, she'd be your uncle. This is a cheap cop out. You admit the state of the world and then say that you don't want the necessary results of your position because... well... that's not what you want.
You're still going to push for your position despite the fact that it will restrict religious liberty, but say that it makes you feel bad that it does. How nice.
-
You're still going to push for your position despite the fact that it will restrict religious liberty, but say that it makes you feel bad that it does. How nice.
I will quibble with this. It is not just freedom of religion that will be lost, but also freedom of association and freedom of speech(0). Pretty much a First Amendment Defenestration Trifecta. On the upside, I bet they won't make gay marriage the state religion(1), so the Establishment Clause is safe.
You're still going to push for your position despite the fact that it will restrict religious liberty, but say that it makes you feel bad that it does. How nice.
Yeah, that is pretty rich. I'm sure there were folks who supported the PATRIOT ACT who really, truly feel bad it has been used to trample common criminals and eviscerate non-criminal/non-terrorist liberty. I can summon up a thimbleful of warm spit with which to properly compensate their regrets.
(0) Given the already extant use of gov't force to curtail them on behalf of this issue.
(1) Officially, that is. They have already transmogrified the Numinous Negro (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/220766/numinous-negro/flashback#) Hallowed Homosexual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinous_negro) into a secular saint.
-
They aren't married in or by the Catholic Church. And we are all sinners, gay or not. We just aren't supposed to celebrate sin.
God loves everyone. He hates sin though. If God created us differently so that it were not totally illogical and had Jesus blessed homosexuality, I would not be personally opposed to it, but if other religions still condemned it, I would oppose it on exactly the same grounds that this is a thinly veiled attack on religious liberty.
And if your aunt had ____, she'd be your uncle. This is a cheap cop out. You admit the state of the world and then say that you don't want the necessary results of your position because... well... that's not what you want.
You're still going to push for your position despite the fact that it will restrict religious liberty, but say that it makes you feel bad that it does. How nice.
First, thanks for the real answers. Would you be so kind as to answer the first question?
Regarding this, "but if other religions still condemned it, I would oppose it on exactly the same grounds that this is a thinly veiled attack on religious liberty," are there things that other religions condemn that you don't support? To clarify, I doubt you support what every religion says and you make actually support opposing views.
My point in #3 was just to say that no matter what happens with gay marriage, the people in this country are becoming less independant and liberty-minded whle becoming more dependant on government. That creates the situation where those people (dependents, leftists, etc) actively try to force people into their way of thinking. I don't want to force you, or anyone else, to accept gay marriage. I want to remove the barriers that tell people what they can not do, from the government's perspective. I still support and encourage you, your church, any business, and everyone else to decide with whom they associate. Under no circumstance do I want to require you to accept gays, gay marriage, or anything else you don't like.
As an aside, are there federal laws that prohibit gay marriage?
-
I've just read through all five pages of this.
I realize this is a "hot button" topic, but I'm seeing a roller coaster of replies ranging from polite debate to borderline unacceptable behavior from both sides of the issue. Lets please be sure to argue facts and positions without resorting to borderline name-calling or derogatory language, else the thread will need to be locked. Thanks.
-
First, thanks for the real answers. Would you be so kind as to answer the first question?
Sorry, I missed that one. What makes their church not as good as mine is their church is wrong. If I didn't believe their church to be wrong, I would be a member of that church.
Regarding this, "but if other religions still condemned it, I would oppose it on exactly the same grounds that this is a thinly veiled attack on religious liberty," are there things that other religions condemn that you don't support? To clarify, I doubt you support what every religion says and you make actually support opposing views.
I think people like Christian scientists are monumentally stupid and theologically unsound on (among many other things) refusing blood transfusions. I have a significant problem with forcing them to purchase insurance that covers blood transfusions for that very reason.
So there is something that other religions condemn that I don't support, but do support their right to be free from government coercion, just as I support the right of Christians to be free of government coercion over gay "marriage".
My point in #3 was just to say that no matter what happens with gay marriage, the people in this country are becoming less independant and liberty-minded whle becoming more dependant on government. That creates the situation where those people (dependents, leftists, etc) actively try to force people into their way of thinking. I don't want to force you, or anyone else, to accept gay marriage. I want to remove the barriers that tell people what they can not do, from the government's perspective. I still support and encourage you, your church, any business, and everyone else to decide with whom they associate. Under no circumstance do I want to require you to accept gays, gay marriage, or anything else you don't like.
That's all fine and good, but pushing for gay marriage will result in a lessening of freedom (as pointed out by roo_ster, covering most of the first amendment) for a large number of individuals. You may not wish that to be the case, but that doesn't change reality.
As an aside, are there federal laws that prohibit gay marriage?
There are no laws that prohibit gay marriage, federal or otherwise. States may (and have) choose to enact government recognition as they wish. States that have not enacted government recognition or even specifically enacted a non-recognition statute still permit gay marriage, in contrast to the active banning they have for polygamy.
-
2. So, if from Day One, God or Jesus had said that homosexuality is OK, would you oppose gay marriage today? Aren't all of God's children loved equally?
If homosexuality were OK that wouldn't make it marriage material. Many things are morally or legally acceptable, but that doesn't make them marriages. Governments don't recognize marriages to help us all feel like we are God's children whom He loves equally.
Now, if Jesus said that homosexuality were OK, and that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships, I might change my mind.
We do note, of course, that same-sex relationships haven't usually been considered the basis for a marriage. Now why would so many cultures, with so many different religious teachings, and so many different lifestyles and circumstances over thousands of years, just happen to agree with American cultural traditions about this? What fundamental difference between the two relationships would cause this same evil prejudice to prevail around the world and throughout history? I just can't figure it out.
-
Be careful fistful, you keep talking like that and Nick will be keepin his eye on you like he does with mak.
I suspect we've been sorted into some kind of category from what I've read.
Maybe the "impervious to the propaganda and group think of the cool kids" category.
-
He needs to decide which master he is going to serve - either the RCC of BHO. He cannot serve both.
I guess RCC > that God dude. LOL.
-
And, to support my premise that the whole purpose of this is to attack religious liberty and the freedom of association:
Georgetown University professor Chai Feldblum says it is a compelling case of what happens in a moment of culture clash. Feldblum, who is an active proponent of gay rights, says the culture and state laws are shifting irrevocably to recognize same-sex unions. And while she knows it's hard for some to hear, she says companies and religious groups that serve the public need to recognize that their customers will be gay couples.
"They need to start thinking now, proactively, how they want to address that. Because I do think that if a gay couple ends up being told their wedding cannot be filmed, five couples will not sue, but the sixth couple will."
And as one legal expert puts it, the gay couples "would win in a walk."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340
-
Does anyone else recall the people on this forum warning us that a socially conservative presidential candidate was going to focus the presidential election on social issues?
And did you further notice which presidential candidate has been making a stink over contraception and marriage in the past few months? (Hint: it's the one who needs to deflect attention from his failed economic policy.)
=)
-
Does anyone else recall the people on this forum warning us that a socially conservative presidential candidate was going to focus the presidential election on social issues?
And did you further notice which presidential candidate has been making a stink over contraception and marriage in the past few months? (Hint: it's the one who needs to deflect attention from his failed economic policy.)
=)
You're not pretending Romney is a true social conservative are you?
-
??? I said not a word about Romney.
-
So, I did not read most of the previous comments. Forgive me if I'm duplicating anything, but here goes.
The gay marriage thing is a straw man for forcing Americans to accept homosexuality as a "normal" lifestyle. Pure and simple.
Government tax policy changes could solve some issues for homosexuals. Wills and trusts, general power of attorney and power of attorney for health care could solve other issues. Unrelated folks can become beneficiaries of life insurance policies by forming legal business partnerships as would the ownership of property. As long as health insurance is going to be tinkered with by government fiat, allowing anyone to be on one's health policy as long as underwriting qualifications are met and premiums paid, is an easy fix there. In otherwords nearly every so called problem encountered by folks who desire a homosexual relationship can be solved without having it "legally" acknowledged that a homosexual relationship is just another another "normal" human function. That's the rub. The activists all know the above, but what they want more than anything is validation.
My comments should not be considered a screed against homosexuality. I have enough sins and faults of my own to be self righteously condemning others. My comments are just that...comments.
-
You're not pretending Romney is a true social conservative are you?
I, for one, am pretending he's better than Obama. =D [tinfoil] >:D >:D [popcorn]
-
I, for one, am pretending he's better than Obama. =D [tinfoil] >:D >:D [popcorn]
A "bent sh1tcan" would be better than Obama. I'm not yet convinced that Romney rises to the level of "bent sh1tcan".
-
Editorial about the erosion of governmental respect for the freedom of conscience of military chaplains.
http://townhall.com/columnists/garymccaleb/2012/05/20/no_rights_of_conscience_for_military_chaplains/page/full/
-
So, I did not read most of the previous comments. Forgive me if I'm duplicating anything, but here goes.
The gay marriage thing is a straw man for forcing Americans to accept homosexuality as a "normal" lifestyle. Pure and simple.
Government tax policy changes could solve some issues for homosexuals. Wills and trusts, general power of attorney and power of attorney for health care could solve other issues. Unrelated folks can become beneficiaries of life insurance policies by forming legal business partnerships as would the ownership of property. As long as health insurance is going to be tinkered with by government fiat, allowing anyone to be on one's health policy as long as underwriting qualifications are met and premiums paid, is an easy fix there. In otherwords nearly every so called problem encountered by folks who desire a homosexual relationship can be solved without having it "legally" acknowledged that a homosexual relationship is just another another "normal" human function. That's the rub. The activists all know the above, but what they want more than anything is validation.
My comments should not be considered a screed against homosexuality. I have enough sins and faults of my own to be self righteously condemning others. My comments are just that...comments.
Wait, so you think gays have equal rights as couples because they could spend thousands in legal fees to accomplish, by fairly tenuous legal arrangements which might be defeated, something close to a marriage (which isn't easily defeated)?
The "oh, they can get the same rights if they want to now" line is simply untrue. It is impossible to recreate a marriage through a series of contracts. You cannot have the same legal rights as a married couple vis a vis a partner through means other than a marriage.
I'd say the desire for those entitlements, free from state moral judgment, is more of a motivator than forcing Christians to like it.
-
To Fistful, et al:
Who cares if a government designates a certain relationship as a marriage? Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your church?
The answer is invariably no, correct?
Then, why should it matter?
A rose by any other name, no?
-
To Fistful, et al:
Who cares if a government designates a certain relationship as a marriage? Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your church?
The answer is invariably no, correct?
Then, why should it matter?
A rose by any other name, no?
Who cares is a government designates a species as endangered? Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your Church? The answer is invariably no, correct?
Then, why should it matter?
A rose by any other name, no?
Who cares if a government declares semi-automatic shotguns illegal? Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your church?
The answer is invariably no, correct?
Then, why should it matter?
A rose by any other name, no?
Who cares if a government creates a massive new entitlement to healthcare? Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your church?
The answer is invariably no, correct?
Then, why should it matter?
A rose by any other name, no?
In case it's not clear, your question is a non-sequitor. Look at every single post in this thread. I will also suggest you look at every single post on this forum ever opposed to gay "marriage." No one has ever claimed it would harm their own marriage.
However, just because something doesn't harm my marriage doesn't mean it has no effect on me, my family, my church, and my community. Just to pull some random example out of the air...
Companies will be sued for choosing not to offer benefits to gay couples. Religious service organizations will be sued (or driven out of their ministry) for refusing to adopt a baby to a gay couple. Religous contractors will be sued for choosing not to bake a cake or photograph gay "wedding" ceremonies. Churches will be sued for choosing not to rent their building out to homosexual couples for their "weddings".
And I can safely make these predictions because other than the first statement, every single one of these have already happened before the government sanctions gay "marriage".
As for the requirement to offer the same benefits to gay couples, is there any doubt that a similar administration to the one currently in office that is forcing religious charities to offer abortofacients to their employees in contravention of their religious beliefs would even blink about forcing companies to treat gay couples the same way as straight couples?
This isn't a difficult concept: it is already happening.
-
To Fistful, et al:
Who cares if a government designates a certain relationship as a marriage? Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your church?
The answer is invariably no, correct?
Then, why should it matter?
A rose by any other name, no?
Read the thread.
-
I'll be a little more polite.
Are you not trying to use the power of government to make us accept your delusions religious principles?
I get allergic when folks try to force religious precepts on people using the power of the government.
I get allergic when folks try to force non-religious precepts on people using the power of government. I also get tired of people trying to claim that the heterosexuality of marriage is something peculiar to religion, as if it were not confirmed by society at large.
Popular mythology to the contrary, there's nothing special about religious ideas that makes them less valid in politics. A non-religious belief is not somehow more deserving to be enshrined in our legal code than a religious one. The scandal of the first amendment is that its separation of church and state (as institutions) has been twisted into a separation of belief and state. Or more precisely, a separation of religious belief and state. The bastard offspring of this confusion is the notion that secular principles make good government, while religious principles are to be shunned.
-
I get allergic when folks try to force non-religious precepts on people using the power of government. I also get tired of people trying to claim that the heterosexuality of marriage is something peculiar to religion, as if it were not confirmed by society at large.
Popular mythology to the contrary, there's nothing special about religious ideas that makes them less valid in politics. A non-religious belief is not somehow more deserving to be enshrined in our legal code than a religious one. The scandal of the first amendment is that its separation of church and state (as institutions) has been twisted into a separation of belief and state. Or more precisely, a separation of religious belief and state. The bastard offspring of this confusion is the notion that secular principles make good government, while religious principles are to be shunned.
The parts I bolded seem to be on both sides of the fence. Are you against same sex marriage because it's against your religion or some secular reason?
-
Not two sides of the fence; two subjects. The first paragraph concerns marriage. The other is about misunderstandings of religious freedom.
Religion is not the main issue in the marriage debate. My views on the politics thereof are independent of my religion.
-
I for one think that what a marriage is should be decided at an individual church basis.
It's so simple that it's brain deadening.
religion a says gay marriages are cool. Gay couples should get married within that church.
religion b says they aren't cool. Why should a gay couple want to be married within that entity? Facepalm if they try to force that entity to change pre-existing rules that they're aware of. That pretty much boils down to a simple contract. If either party (church and couple) isn't satisfied with the terms, then there shouldn't be an agreement. Go find another religion / church that will accept your ways. Duh.
If I go to a modern non-denominational Christian church, and I find out that the spiritual leader of the church is willing to ordain gay marriages through his church, I'll simply wish them the best, and find another church.
I really don't get why this issue has to be so complicated. ... Well... that's a lie, I do get why:
http://www.malakhgabriel.net/images/stopliking.jpg
Who cares is a government designates a species as endangered? Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your Church? The answer is invariably no, correct?
Then, why should it matter?
A rose by any other name, no?
Who cares if a government declares semi-automatic shotguns illegal? Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your church?
The answer is invariably no, correct?
Then, why should it matter?
A rose by any other name, no?
Who cares if a government creates a massive new entitlement to healthcare? Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your church? The answer is invariably no, correct?
Then, why should it matter?
A rose by any other name, no?
In case it's not clear, your question is a non-sequitor. Look at every single post in this thread. I will also suggest you look at every single post on this forum ever opposed to gay "marriage." No one has ever claimed it would harm their own marriage.
However, just because something doesn't harm my marriage doesn't mean it has no effect on me, my family, my church, and my community. Just to pull some random example out of the air...
Give me a break, mak. A non-sequitur would compare gay marriage to a myriad of other ridiculous things, like NFA weapons or endangered species. You are so wrong about my post being a non-sequitur that I don't really know how else to put it. My post is quite apropos, and you're just wrong.
Actually, I'm reading your post again, and I really don't get what point you're trying to make.
Are you saying that a short barreled shotgun is still just a shotgun to me, and that useless bureaucratic laws based on bureaucratic definitions are meaningless?
Do you not get how that just validates my point??? Surely you're not that dense, mak.
I compared gay marriages to straight marriages.
It really boils down to the fact that government nomenclature has some people all up in arms.
Please re-read my post, I didn't say anyone was claiming gay marriages would harm straight marriages. I did ask how gay marriages would force one to change their perspectives.
If you're worried about how something affects you, then get counseling.
If you're worried about how something affects your family, then talk to your wife and kids.
If you're worried about how something affects your church, get with your pastor and the elders of your church so you can understand where they stand on the issue of gay marriage.
If you're worried about your community, then conduct some research to see how they view the issues.
Sorry, but using your own predictions as a citation or even a random example is laughable. your non sequitur concerning health care in that prophecy post is also irrelevant.
Read the thread.
You're incorrectly assuming I can somehow infer your answer to my question from your previous posts.
Read my post. again.
-
OK, fine.
To Fistful, et al:
Who cares if a government designates a certain relationship as a marriage?
Apparently, a lot of people on both sides of the issue.
Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your church?
The answer is invariably no, correct?
Yes, the answer is no.
Then, why should it matter?
Read the thread. Just to be extra nice, I went and dug out all of my comments in this thread that speak to your question. Behold:
No one believes for a minute that you are that ignorant. You know what marriage is.
Oh, so you've decided to tell yourself that marriage isn't what it plainly is. I see.
You decided. You decided. Exactly. The idea that the theorizing of a random "internet commando" is more relevant to the question of marriage than mere governments or religions perfectly reflects the same-sex marriage position. You think that people can flagrantly outrage tradition, religion and society (through homosexual behavior), and then expect to be embraced by the traditions of the society their behavior mocks. Tradition be spat upon, until the spitters demand that it be applied to them. Sorry, you're not pulling that fast one on me.
If folk want to live a non-traditional lifestyle, I don't stand in their way. But don't out-rightly reject social norms and then claim that you deserve to be recognized by them. You're either in, or you're out. Either you want marriage or you don't. If you want to spend your life with someone of the same sex, go ahead. But that means you reject marriage. Live with it. That is how freedom works.
This proves nothing about the current marriage debate, of course. The characteristics of marriage may be different from place to place, but that does not make it desirable to gut the very essence of marriage, as Fly320s wishes to do.
And of course, an appeal to infinitely mutable social definitions and traditions is no ground upon which to declare that marriage is "two adults entering into a contract," and therefore not sex-selective. If the institution can be twisted into anything we desire, then one view of marriage is as good as another. Appeals to justice, rights, equality or fairness are similarly invalid, being but traditions themselves.
....Pretending not to understand basic concepts; where would the irrational marriage movement be without it?!
So government failing to recognize non-marriages - this is restricting people, in your fevered imagination?
It's precisely because homosexual relationships do not effect you or me that makes legal recognition of them so brainless.
Sorry, sunshine. You're the one proposing that our government(s) fall in line with some kooky idea dreamed up from out of nowhere. Your place is not to demand explanations from us sane folk - your place is to provide them. 'Cause it sounds like you're proposing a very bizarre solution to a problem that ain't there.
I certainly hope we can find enough people to agree that marriage is what it is. I hope we can find enough people who agree that water is wet. I'd prefer not to live in a polity where any legal or political goal, no matter how bizarre, can be brought about by people like yourself repeating inane assertions, then branding any dissenters as deniers of equal rights, bigots, etc. Then you demand that we prove our assertion that water is wet. It's tiresome.
If homosexuality were OK that wouldn't make it marriage material. Many things are morally or legally acceptable, but that doesn't make them marriages. Governments don't recognize marriages to help us all feel like we are God's children whom He loves equally.
Now, if Jesus said that homosexuality were OK, and that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships, I might change my mind.
We do note, of course, that same-sex relationships haven't usually been considered the basis for a marriage. Now why would so many cultures, with so many different religious teachings, and so many different lifestyles and circumstances over thousands of years, just happen to agree with American cultural traditions about this? What fundamental difference between the two relationships would cause this same evil prejudice to prevail around the world and throughout history? I just can't figure it out.
A rose by any other name, no?
No.
-
Give me a break, mak. A non-sequitur would compare gay marriage to a myriad of other ridiculous things, like NFA weapons or endangered species. You are so wrong about my post being a non-sequitur that I don't really know how else to put it. My post is quite apropos, and you're just wrong.
No, your point is a non-sequitur and a strawman. No one in this entire thread or the history of APS is arguing that if gay people get "married" it will harm the marriage of the gay marriage opponents. You valiantly knocked that strawman down, though. Kudos!
Actually, I'm reading your post again, and I really don't get what point you're trying to make.
Are you saying that a short barreled shotgun is still just a shotgun to me, and that useless bureaucratic laws based on bureaucratic definitions are meaningless?
Do you not get how that just validates my point??? Surely you're not that dense, mak.
No, I was making the point that my opposition to stupid laws like the endangered species, NFA restrictions and the ACA (Obamacare) have absolutely nothing to do with how those laws will affect my marriage to my wife, just as my opposition to government sanctioned homosexual "marriage" has nothing to do with how those laws will affect my marriage to my wife.
I compared gay marriages to straight marriages.
No, you didn't.
It really boils down to the fact that government nomenclature has some people all up in arms.
No, it isn't. It comes down to using the force of government against those who oppose homosexual "marriages" in contravention of the first amendment.
Please re-read my post, I didn't say anyone was claiming gay marriages would harm straight marriages. I did ask how gay marriages would force one to change their perspectives.
I think you are being disingenuous here. You are clearly implying that homosexual "marriages" would not harm my or any other opponents marriage so we should just stop opposing them.
If you're worried about how something affects you, then get counseling.
If you're worried about how something affects your family, then talk to your wife and kids.
If you're worried about how something affects your church, get with your pastor and the elders of your church so you can understand where they stand on the issue of gay marriage.
If you're worried about your community, then conduct some research to see how they view the issues.
Sorry, but using your own predictions as a citation or even a random example is laughable. your non sequitur concerning health care in that prophecy post is also irrelevant.
If you had actually read the post, my "predictions" have already happened in this very country. My "predictions" are of the same quality of those who lay out the dangers of gun registration.
Or are you ok with gun registration because it will in no way harm your ownership of guns?
-
Wait, so you think gays have equal rights as couples because they could spend thousands in legal fees to accomplish, by fairly tenuous legal arrangements which might be defeated, something close to a marriage (which isn't easily defeated)?
The "oh, they can get the same rights if they want to now" line is simply untrue. It is impossible to recreate a marriage through a series of contracts. You cannot have the same legal rights as a married couple vis a vis a partner through means other than a marriage.
I'd say the desire for those entitlements, free from state moral judgment, is more of a motivator than forcing Christians to like it.
Virtually every suggestion that I made in my post, save necessary tax policy changes and some reformation of health care which could be lobbied, my heterosexual wife and I did in order to simplify any problems that may come up with while living the vagaries of life. So in defending the Straw Man, you seem to think that homosexuals should somehow also be exempted from taking legal steps to simplify life's problems because it costs money? Pshaw, DeSelby.