Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by JollyRoger, Feb 13, 2008.
Why would you go and inject logic into this debate?
I agree 100% with you on this, Homie:
I don't even need weird, "odd-case" scenarios -- I just don't see what effect two men or two women getting married could possibly have on a heterosexual couple. I'm a proud member of a heterosexual couple in a state that just enacted sweeping civil unions legislation, and I don't feel any different about my marriage. Nor do I feel any different about it because Massachusetts allows for out-and-out (pun intended) marriage. (I'd actually prefer my state do that.) I'm curious what I'm missing -- how come my marriage hasn't been affected at all?
To add to that though, if you were to ask my personal opinion on gay marriage, it has changed in the recent months. This is my position today:
If a gay couple wants to legally and technically be married in a court or something, let them do so. But churches shall not be forced to wed a gay couple as it is against the teaching of the Bible. Also, the government should not interfere with religious matters.
After reading works by great thinkers such as Bastiat and John Locke, and after hearing Ron Paul speak, I have become convinced that government should be limited to the protection of its citizens and their property from domestic and foreign threats, and this is where the sphere of government should end. Then it is left to the churches and Christians to install morals into their fellow citizens, it is not up to government. Apparently people like myself used to be called "liberals", but the lefties inappropriately applied that word to themselves, so people like me are now called libertarians. I prefer liberal, it rolls of the tongue easier, so to you lefties I say:"Give us our label back!"
Unless you are going to start forcing heterosexual couples to undergo government observation to see if they are fit to marry and be parents then its grotesquely ignorant to not let gays marry and adopt. Plenty of bad heterosexual couples get married and ruin the "sanctity" of it and plenty of crap heterosexuals have kids and ruin them. Its pointless, devoid of logic, and archaic to assume two people of the same sex cant out perform so many of the miserable heterosexual couples.
I'm from that secessionist city of New Yawk, don'tchaknow?
That's exactly what the most radical gay rights supporters want. No more, no less.
Welcome to the Homosexual Agenda,
I don't think very many people are asking for churches to be forced to wed a gay couple. Nevertheless, it's kind of strange that most tax-paying businesses can't discriminate, but churches, who don't pay taxes, get special treatment in regards to getting a pass on the discrimination laws.
Nobody could force a church to wed anyone. Well, I suppose you could, but by that point, the entire point of our republic is down the toilet, anyway.
As far as the government is concerned, it's a kind of contract and something on the tax code.
Amsterdam is just minutes from me!!
Well, maybe they do have some of the finer comforts of both Actual Amsterdam and New Amsterdam.
If we removed the tax benefits of 'marriage', or otherwise turned the secular benefits of 'marriage' into a 'civil union', and left 'marriage' to the churches, this whole issue would go away, no?
Seperation of marriage, civil union, church and state
But that makes way too much sense. If you removed the word "marriage" from the statute books, (i) it would be a tremendous amount of work to update all the statutes and administrative code publications, and (ii) the gay terrorists would conquer the United States and force us all to marry one another and institute shari'a law. Or something.
Bingo! Thats the problem with gay marriage... Once gays can "marry", they can sue for discrimination... You have rental properties and you dont like gays, they can sue to rent from you. You provide married employees with benefits, your gay employee can sue for "marriage benefits". This aint just about gays getting married, its about gays using government to compel people to treat them like they're married.
Frankly I dont care and it aint my business if two people love each other and get married, thats the pursuit of happiness. But I dont support "equal treatment" lawsuits, that provision of the Constitution applies only to government and not private interaction.
So get rid of all those benefits granted to married couples currently. Now, you're done!
That or just accept that those benefits applied to all married couples after the fact.
But those suits aren't bottomed on the Constitution, they're bottomed on anti-discrimination statutes.
Why? Many employers provide those benefits to young married employees to help them with the cost of raising a family.
Based on what authority? "Equal treatment" is a burden on government, not us... we're free to decide what we like or dont like.
Which are "based" on the "equal protection/treatment" clause of the Constitution. The Feds dont have the authority to tell me who I can or cannot associate with, or who I can or cannot discriminate against.
In such a case the child would obviously stay with its parent who has custody. That being said, divorce is a messy affair and outside of the will of God, it does not lead to good.
Couldn't agree more, it is truly sad. But allowing gays to marry and adopt wouldn't make things better, quite the contrary.
Wow, so things have already reached that point. The speed at which our society is becoming depraved is astounding.
What is the proof that it would make things worse than they are currently?
A drunk husband who beats his wife all the time aint exactly God's will now, is it? And it sure leads to good for the woman if she does leave.
Fewer babies in state custody? How about letting gays adopt gay teens? Or would that be promoting the pedophile agenda
Odd that Rove would be so against it...
Separate names with a comma.