View Full Version : Marriage Vs Marriage.. A question
clublights
08-09-2012, 12:47
Ok So I have a question.
Now I know this is going to bring up some emotional responses but that is not really what I'm looking for just honest explanations.
I have brought this up to the mods they while saying " I don't wanna touch it with a ten foot pole" have given me the go ahead.
I have no real issue with Gay Marriage.
I understand that is is against The Bible, and I have no qualms with that nor is that my question.
What I'm wondering is how exactly ( or your opinion heh) does a couple of guys or gals getting married hurts traditional marriage ( outside of what the bible says)
I frankly just do not understand how it hurts. I've been married... I've been divorced. With failed marriages reaching almost 50% of all marriages I just don't get it.
I wanted to ask here because this site generally leans right and I know I'll get more answer to my question here then anywhere else.
So again here's the question:
Setting aside the issue within The Bible, How does gay marriage hurt traditional marriage?
A couple of final Warnings/ Notices:
1. I'm NOT out to change anyones opinion on either side of the issue but possibly my own.
2. The Mods are going to keep an eye on this and will lock it up if we get out of hand.
3. We are all adults and lets act like it ( at least for this one thread)
4. PLEASE leave the emotions at the door as much as ya can on this one.
5. I thank you in advance for helping me understand the issue better.
Tinelement
08-09-2012, 12:55
Ready......go!!
[Pop]
kanekutter05
08-09-2012, 12:58
I thought this was going to be some marriage battle. I was going to volunteer my wife and I [LOL]
If you're excluding the Biblical reasons, then I dont think I have anything to add here
[Pop]
I don't see how it hurts anything, but then again I'm not of a Christian based faith.
If a gay or lesbian couple wants to marry each other it doesn't affect me, my wife, my children in any way shape or form. IF/when it does, I'd likely deal with it at that time and in my own way.... which is probably outside of a majority way of thinking also, but hey.... I live back here in the woods.... people seriously disappear. [ROFL1]
Badger
Everyone wanted a pc of the Rock
I personally have no qualms with homosexuals getting married. They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us. The flip side is that they should have to abide by all that that legally implies: divorce, inheritance, taxation, child support, alimony, etcetera. No rights without equal responsibility. Legally, marriage is a contract between 2 people. In the eyes of the law, the genitalia of those people should be irrelevant.
Socially, traditional marriage supporters believe that allowing nontraditional marriage to be sanctioned by the government will somehow dilute the "sanctity" of their marriages. I personally believe that the .gov should not be in the marriage business.
<sticking fingers in the fan>
I have no problem with gay marriage. From a government standpoint, it is a way to track marriage/divorce, just like straight couples. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, would/should give gay couples the rights as straight couples. Some of those rights being legal and medical decisions, taxing status, insurance, etc...
I don't see how gay marriage can/will effect the tradition of straight marriage. With close to a 50% divorce rate, what is there to effect?
SA Friday
08-09-2012, 13:06
It doesn't really. Considering the majority of the country has a religion based on he tree of Abraham, the majority of moralities are based on those various teachings and all have the teaching of the old testament in common. You really cannot separate the root of a moral belief from ones modern ethics. Unfortunately, anyone using Levidticus as a justifiable moral compass has never read that portion of the old testament.
Pancho Villa
08-09-2012, 13:11
The Conservative argument is that the family (specifically the relatively new judeo-christian family, since Old Testament figures routinely had many wives/concubines) is the foundation of society, and any deviation from that would spell disaster in the long run.
(It somehow did not spell disaster to these old testament figures who were, to all accounts, quite Godly and had many wives, but hey. Times a-change.)
It tracks pretty well with the general Conservative view that America's success is due to a specific godliness and being favored by God, rather than specific secular policies that have been implemented. That is the reason a lot (not all, but a lot) of conservatives seem so free market at first; really, it's less being pro-free-market as much as thinking the real important things like gay marriage, abortion, and other social issues will make or unmake America.
As always, those views are subject to alteration or being disregarded by individual conservatives, but if you track conservative/christian theological thinking.
A great review of how Christian theology in the modern age in America applies to politics is "Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture" by Wayne Grudem. You can argue about his intepretations and fudging of certain things a lot, but he's a hardcore theologian that writes textbook for the school of thought that dominates Seminaries and has for over a decade now.
Basically, if your pastor is under 40 or 45, odds are he was taught from textbooks written by Grudem or someone like him. From the pastors people absorb ideas; and thus an astonishingly small minority of people determine the long-term direction of a church-going nation.
Fascinating, no?
ghettodub
08-09-2012, 13:11
That's always kind of been my question too. I was not raised, nor have I ever been, religious. It seems like some people I've talked with states that this is mentioned in the old testament, but also state that a majority of Christians do not follow the old testament. If you did, wouldn't you have to follow all of it, like the no tattoos, no shaving or cutting hair above a certain area, etc.
Would love to learn more about it.
Gay marriage has little to do with 2 peoples devotion to each other. Any 2 people can live together and share there lives together.
Its about money. Being able to share insurance, being able to share SS benifits, and being able to make legal decisions for each other.
Isn't this a question of definition?
What does marriage mean? Excluding the definition I would use based on the source I would choose, leaves me with this source as one of many possible alternative sources: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage?s=t
Ultimately, marriage is a legal contract made by two parties as defined by the laws of a given political entity, i.e. county, city, incorporated jurisdiction.
Regardless of what a particular group thinks or feels about marriage, the only legally enforceable definition of marriage must be decided by the political entity that provides the marriage license.
Given the nature of most democratic political entities, a majority of voting citizens within a particular political entity, SHOULD (not always true) determine how that political entity defines marriage.
This is an interesting area of US law. I am not a legal scholar, so this is the quickest reference I could come up with:
"Between two different States in the United States, enforcement is generally required under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" (Article IV, Section 1) of the U.S. Constitution, which compels a State to give another State's Judgment an effect as if it were local. This usually requires some sort of an abbreviated application on notice, or docketing. Between one State in the United States, and a foreign country, Canada, for example, the prevailing concept is comity. The Court in the United States, in most cases, will unilaterally enforce the foreign judgment, without proof of diplomatic reciprocity, either under judge-made law or under specific statutes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_of_foreign_judgments
The subject is interesting and obviously arouses great emotion for persons who have something at stake.
Be safe.
HBARleatherneck
08-09-2012, 13:46
delete
Great-Kazoo
08-09-2012, 13:47
I don't care one way or the other. Same sex couples should be able to share health benefits and any other medical or legal benefits heterosexual couples enjoy.
The issue i do have is a same sex couple demanding a House of Worship perform a wedding for them. IF the church does not want to perform one great, their choice. Do not threaten court action, protest, etc just because you cannot get your way.
Get married at the courthouse, justice of the peace, even vegas. Just don't force a religious entity to do something they are opposed to.
Can't we just go straight to the root of the issue and ask why the hell does the state/govt have to be involved with marriage in the first place.
Because it is sick and wrong. And so is anybody who supports it.
And before some ignorant idiot says I'm a homophobe, I'm not. Anybody that knows me knows I'm not afraid of shit. That's just another term the libbies used that too many of you wanna be right-wingers have adopted.
And if anybody needs a common sense answer, it's quite simple. It is unnatural. Same sex cannot reproduce, which is why we have sex organs anyways.
Duh.
Can't we just go straight to the root of the issue and ask why the hell does the state/govt have to be involved with marriage in the first place.
My only reason for the state getting involved is for a historical reference. Placing rules and stipulations on what marriage is, is a different story.
kanekutter05
08-09-2012, 14:04
I don't care one way or the other. Same sex couples should be able to share health benefits and any other medical or legal benefits heterosexual couples enjoy.
The issue i do have is a same sex couple demanding a House of Worship perform a wedding for them. IF the church does not want to perform one great, their choice. Do not threaten court action, protest, etc just because you cannot get your way.
Get married at the courthouse, justice of the peace, even vegas. Just don't force a religious entity to do something they are opposed to.
+1
It's the whole "you WILL accept what we believe" thing. It's veiled in the name of tolerance but it is actually demanding acceptance. I still think a business owner ought to be able to refuse service to any one for any reason. If it's a stupid reason, then that business just wont get patronized and will close its doors. Capitalism at its finest.
Gay marriage won't have the slightest effect on my straight marriage. Y'all have at it!
TEAMRICO
08-09-2012, 14:15
Because you put children in the middle when they adopt. That child did not have a choice.
I'm all for gay divorce, gay child support, gay alimony! Didn't the first couple to marry in CA divorce already?
[LOL]
Teufelhund
08-09-2012, 14:16
I personally have no qualms with homosexuals getting married. They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us. The flip side is that they should have to abide by all that that legally implies: divorce, inheritance, taxation, child support, alimony, etcetera. No rights without equal responsibility. Legally, marriage is a contract between 2 people. In the eyes of the law, the genitalia of those people should be irrelevant.
Socially, traditional marriage supporters believe that allowing nontraditional marriage to be sanctioned by the government will somehow dilute the "sanctity" of their marriages. I personally believe that the .gov should not be in the marriage business.
This echoes my feelings on it exactly. There is no argument at all outside a religious premise, which is intentionally prohibited from being legislated.
I'm pretty surprised by the responses here, except the one guy who let his emotions get the best of him. I honestly expected to see a lot of responses in that same vein.
BlasterBob
08-09-2012, 14:21
"They" are just in the process of getting a "foot in the door". Next, some joker will want to "marry" his sheep or horse or cow. What the hell next? I do NOT want to see my insurance rates go up because my insurance company now has to pay benefits for some person who was not entitled to insurance but is suddenly covered by a new same sex spouse. Hey, my belief and I am entitled to one but it's also your right to see this in a totally different way.
OK, I have my flame resistant suit on so flame away at this point. [UZI]
newracer
08-09-2012, 14:22
Anyone concerned that people will get married just to get benefits of health insurance, etc?
Gay marriage has little to do with 2 peoples devotion to each other. Any 2 people can live together and share there lives together.
Its about money. Being able to share insurance, being able to share SS benifits, and being able to make legal decisions for each other.
Actually, you can put anyone living in your household on your insurance, and life insurance pays to whoever you dictate as your beneficiary- I'm guessing you mean health insurance, but I'm pretty sure if you're living together under common law you should be okay on that too, but not entirely sure.
My opinion, I honestly don't give two shits who marries whom. I feel that social interference (from either side) will only further divide us. Freedom is a two way street, you will have one group that says one thing, and another that says the opposite, both are not wrong, both are not right, both just are.
"The way to silence religious disputes is to take no notice of them."
"Religious belief is the business of the individual, not the state." -Thomas Jefferson
BushMasterBoy
08-09-2012, 14:36
Between the first recognition of AIDS in 1981 and 2009 it has led to nearly 30 million deaths. Encourage the lifestyle that has killed this many? They don't publicize this much anymore, as it is politically incorrect(if you are after votes). These are just the facts, I did not make this up. The DNA is traceable as the AIDS virus uses your DNA to replicate. See no emotions!~
Feel free to discuss virology and why you should not eat beef tainted with mad cow disease either...
crashdown
08-09-2012, 14:39
Historically gay rights have been more about "special rights" than equal rights.
Back in the early 90's in Fort Collins when I was a lot more political, Gay's had quite a few things up for the voting public to decide. Things like employer discrimination where a subject of the propositions. On the surface it sounded fair, but underneath where things like the employer paying legal fees for gays that sued their employer even if the employer was found innocent of the charges in court. Gays also pushed for "life partner unions" that would give them access to their partners health benefits as if they were married. The reality was that they didn't really want a true legal marriage because they would have to go through divorces as well.
I'm not sure what is going on now, but back then it was full of double standards written into what was being proposed that got it all shot down.
TriggerHappy
08-09-2012, 14:53
I personally have no qualms with homosexuals getting married. They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us. The flip side is that they should have to abide by all that that legally implies: divorce, inheritance, taxation, child support, alimony, etcetera. No rights without equal responsibility. Legally, marriage is a contract between 2 people. In the eyes of the law, the genitalia of those people should be irrelevant.
Socially, traditional marriage supporters believe that allowing nontraditional marriage to be sanctioned by the government will somehow dilute the "sanctity" of their marriages. I personally believe that the .gov should not be in the marriage business.
+1 well said
Between the first recognition of AIDS in 1981 and 2009 it has led to nearly 30 million deaths. Encourage the lifestyle that has killed this many? They don't publicize this much anymore, as it is politically incorrect(if you are after votes). These are just the facts, I did not make this up. The DNA is traceable as the AIDS virus uses your DNA to replicate. See no emotions!~
Feel free to discuss virology and why you should not eat beef tainted with mad cow disease either...
And what lifestyle is it that has killed so many? AIDS can infect anyone... I lost an uncle to that terrible virus. So are you saying that promiscuity is what we should cease to encourage?
kanekutter05
08-09-2012, 14:57
I love how this is a cordial, intelligent discussion (so far) involving such an incendiary issue...
But the damn bike wave thread erputed like Mt. St. Helens [ROFL3]
Between the first recognition of AIDS in 1981 and 2009 it has led to nearly 30 million deaths. Encourage the lifestyle that has killed this many? They don't publicize this much anymore, as it is politically incorrect(if you are after votes). These are just the facts, I did not make this up. The DNA is traceable as the AIDS virus uses your DNA to replicate. See no emotions!~
Legalizing/recognizing gay marriage isn't going to increase/decrease HIV/AIDS infections. Single/married/gay/straight/male/female are all affected by the disease and legislating marriage isn't going to change that.
"They" are just in the process of getting a "foot in the door". Next, some joker will want to "marry" his sheep or horse or cow. What the hell next? I do NOT want to see my insurance rates go up because my insurance company now has to pay benefits for some person who was not entitled to insurance but is suddenly covered by a new same sex spouse. Hey, my belief and I am entitled to one but it's also your right to see this in a totally different way.
OK, I have my flame resistant suit on so flame away at this point. [UZI]
Marriage has had many meanings over the course of our species' history: monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, plural marriages, contact marriages (with a set term), totemic marriages, ad infinitum. Biologically, marriage serves the purpose of providing for the welfare of children until they can provide for themselves and are ready to reproduce. Given our current level of civilization and technology, the likelihood is that a homosexual couple that adopts a child is equally as capable of this as a heterosexual one.
Great-Kazoo
08-09-2012, 15:09
Anyone concerned that people will get married just to get benefits of health insurance, etc?
I think that's more for citizenship. :)
Even if not married a hetro couple living together is able to put their (opposite sex) partner on their ins & health benefits. Whereas a same sex couple cannot.
Because it is sick and wrong. And so is anybody who supports it.
And if anybody needs a common sense answer, it's quite simple. It is unnatural. Same sex cannot reproduce, which is why we have sex organs anyways.
Hmm.. Guess the whole 'it feels good' and 'its tons of fun' between consenting adults arguments are just plain wrong too, eh?
Great-Kazoo
08-09-2012, 15:24
Hmm.. Guess the whole 'it feels good' and 'its tons of fun' between consenting adults arguments are just plain wrong too, eh?
He's allowed to express his beliefs & opinion, whether anyone likes it or not.
A few of my beliefs & opinions might not go over too well here, WAIT they already have:0
Byte Stryke
08-09-2012, 15:26
I Just want to know when we get to line up and stone all of the whores and Heretics for these traditional marriage types!
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Because it is sick and wrong. And so is anybody who supports it.
And before some ignorant idiot says I'm a homophobe, I'm not. Anybody that knows me knows I'm not afraid of shit. That's just another term the libbies used that too many of you wanna be right-wingers have adopted.
And if anybody needs a common sense answer, it's quite simple. It is unnatural. Same sex cannot reproduce, which is why we have sex organs anyways.
Duh.
I have to... [Poke]
You know what else is unnatural? Condoms, breast implants, pacemakers, and 80 year olds with hard-ons. Men who have had vasectomies also cannot reproduce. So to apply your "common sense answer" logic to everything else it is like a bucket with a hole in it, holds no water. [Tooth]
kanekutter05
08-09-2012, 15:33
I Just want to know when we get to line up and stone all of the whores and Heretics for these traditional marriage types!
Ok I lied I guess I do have something to add...you really cannot take a single verse out of the Bible and use it for or against any viewpoint. Historical context and the context within the original language are really crucial to understanding any Bible verse. Christians are as wrong for solely using the Leviticus verses as justification against being gay as non-Christians are for using verses to have the "gotcha" moment towards Christians for not following the Old Testament to a T. Context, context, context...
Rucker61
08-09-2012, 15:41
Because it is sick and wrong. And so is anybody who supports it.
And before some ignorant idiot says I'm a homophobe, I'm not. Anybody that knows me knows I'm not afraid of shit. That's just another term the libbies used that too many of you wanna be right-wingers have adopted.
And if anybody needs a common sense answer, it's quite simple. It is unnatural. Same sex cannot reproduce, which is why we have sex organs anyways.
Duh.
How many orgasms have you had? How many kids have you had?
Rucker61
08-09-2012, 15:42
I Just want to know when we get to line up and stone all of the whores and Heretics for these traditional marriage types!
Like these Biblical marriages:
http://bobcargill.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/biblical-marriage.jpg
This thread started good. Now it is just sad.
So where do you draw the line? You going to say next that pedophilia is okay?
You think that my argument holds no water-but you are comparing apples and oranges. Use your brain. My statement makes perfect sense and is undeniable.
And again-some of you call yourselves conservatives-but you are so far left it is sick. You want to pick and choose when you are right or left.
Interesting.
If you want to be a fag or a fag lover, go ahead. It still is a limited free country.
But if you think all the minority groups should have equal rights, then you know nothing of history or the way things work. Once you give equality to the minority, the majority loses their rights. That's all there is to it.
How many orgasms have you had? How many kids have you had?
None of your fucking business. WTF is wrong with you asking that kind of question?
kanekutter05
08-09-2012, 15:57
I move to nominate Tristan to succeed me as the biggest asshat on this forum. Any 2nds?
This thread started good. Now it is just sad.
So where do you draw the line? You going to say next that pedophilia is okay?
How about this line just off the top of my head?
Two consenting adults of any gender. There you go, no women marrying their horses or men marrying eight year old girls. Simple.
BushMasterBoy
08-09-2012, 15:59
You are both equal! Hurray!
Rucker61
08-09-2012, 16:00
None of your fucking business. WTF is wrong with you asking that kind of question?
If the purpose of sex is reproduction, it should be a one to one ratio, right?
Byte Stryke
08-09-2012, 16:01
Ok I lied I guess I do have something to add...you really cannot take a single verse out of the Bible and use it for or against any viewpoint. Historical context and the context within the original language are really crucial to understanding any Bible verse. Christians are as wrong for solely using the Leviticus verses as justification against being gay as non-Christians are for using verses to have the "gotcha" moment towards Christians for not following the Old Testament to a T. Context, context, context...
my comment was meant more for the fair weather Christians, Blasphemers, Heretics and hypocrites.
Like this guy...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iB0OObs-ozo/T-XH7YdnDBI/AAAAAAAAA-E/LoJlFhA0cFk/s1600/leviticus.jpg
but then:
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone [at her].
John 8:7
clublights
08-09-2012, 16:01
I'm Not trying to put anyone on a target here I just have a few questions/ statements to make on a few of the posts made...
I don't care one way or the other. Same sex couples should be able to share health benefits and any other medical or legal benefits heterosexual couples enjoy.
The issue i do have is a same sex couple demanding a House of Worship perform a wedding for them. IF the church does not want to perform one great, their choice. Do not threaten court action, protest, etc just because you cannot get your way.
Get married at the courthouse, justice of the peace, even vegas. Just don't force a religious entity to do something they are opposed to.
I agree that no one can tell a church what to do . if the church says nope not gunna do it then there you have it . their church their rules. Of course the flip side of that coin is what if the church said not gunna marry a black couple.. would that still be ok ? I wanna say no it would not be .. but then again their church their rules... kinda confusing in my head. ... of course this still brings up the original question how does it hurt traditional marriage ?
Because it is sick and wrong. And so is anybody who supports it.
And before some ignorant idiot says I'm a homophobe, I'm not. Anybody that knows me knows I'm not afraid of shit. That's just another term the libbies used that too many of you wanna be right-wingers have adopted.
And if anybody needs a common sense answer, it's quite simple. It is unnatural. Same sex cannot reproduce, which is why we have sex organs anyways.
Duh.
Ok I see this point of view.. I disagree to a point of it . but again what does sick and wrong have to do with harming traditional Marriage ? which is the original question .
Because you put children in the middle when they adopt. That child did not have a choice.
I'm all for gay divorce, gay child support, gay alimony! Didn't the first couple to marry in CA divorce already?
[LOL]
Admit it ... watching gay divorce court on TV would be funny as all hell ....
"They" are just in the process of getting a "foot in the door". Next, some joker will want to "marry" his sheep or horse or cow. What the hell next? I do NOT want to see my insurance rates go up because my insurance company now has to pay benefits for some person who was not entitled to insurance but is suddenly covered by a new same sex spouse. Hey, my belief and I am entitled to one but it's also your right to see this in a totally different way.
OK, I have my flame resistant suit on so flame away at this point. [UZI]
Is beastiality a huge problem ( as in happening a lot ) ?
Mass shootings are not a common issue. yet folks think taking away "hi cap clips" will solve the issue. we all know that the " hi cap clips" have nothing to do with the issue.
See what I did there?
How does insurance have to do with harming traditional marriage tho ??? again the original question
Anyone concerned that people will get married just to get benefits of health insurance, etc?
I know for a FACT This happens already with hetro couples.
kanekutter05
08-09-2012, 16:01
You are both equal! Hurray!
Damn! [Rant2]
clublights
08-09-2012, 16:02
I move to nominate Tristan to succeed me as the biggest asshat on this forum. Any 2nds?
Remember that part at the start where I said lets act like adults....
yeah your failing on that right now .
kanekutter05
08-09-2012, 16:03
my comment was meant more for the fair weather Christians, Blasphemers, Heretics and hypocrites.
Ah fair enough. I didn't mean to imply you were trying to catch someone in one of those "gotcha" moments if that's what you thought.
Rucker61
08-09-2012, 16:03
This thread started good. Now it is just sad.
So where do you draw the line? You going to say next that pedophilia is okay?
You think that my argument holds no water-but you are comparing apples and oranges. Use your brain. My statement makes perfect sense and is undeniable.
This is the same argument that was used to support anti-miscegenation laws in the past "It ain't nacheral". It was wrong then and it's a bad argument now.
And again-some of you call yourselves conservatives-but you are so far left it is sick. You want to pick and choose when you are right or left.
Interesting.
It's called being capable of abstract thought. Try it, you might like it.
If you want to be a fag or a fag lover, go ahead. It still is a limited free country.
But if you think all the minority groups should have equal rights, then you know nothing of history or the way things work. Once you give equality to the minority, the majority loses their rights. That's all there is to it.
Why do you hate the Constitution?
kanekutter05
08-09-2012, 16:04
Remember that part at the start where I said lets act like adults....
yeah your failing on that right now .
Sorry dad...[Censor]
This thread started good. Now it is just sad.
So where do you draw the line? You going to say next that pedophilia is okay?
You think that my argument holds no water-but you are comparing apples and oranges. Use your brain. My statement makes perfect sense and is undeniable.
And again-some of you call yourselves conservatives-but you are so far left it is sick. You want to pick and choose when you are right or left.
Interesting.
If you want to be a fag or a fag lover, go ahead. It still is a limited free country.
But if you think all the minority groups should have equal rights, then you know nothing of history or the way things work. Once you give equality to the minority, the majority loses their rights. That's all there is to it.
Wow... "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men [and women] are created equal." So by your logic blacks, asians, and pacific islanders shouldn't have equal rights either. Dude, you better hurry, you're gonna miss your KKK rally.
clublights
08-09-2012, 16:20
This thread started good. Now it is just sad.
So where do you draw the line? You going to say next that pedophilia is okay?
There are already laws against this . connecting homosexual with pedophila makes no sense.
I love sex with females. that does not mean I love sex with child females.
just cuz they like to have sex with the same sex does not mean they wanna have sex with same sex children. completely disconnected.
You think that my argument holds no water-but you are comparing apples and oranges. Use your brain. My statement makes perfect sense and is undeniable.
And again-some of you call yourselves conservatives-but you are so far left it is sick. You want to pick and choose when you are right or left.
Interesting.
Why do I have to be put in a box where I can't " color outside the lines"? I always believed that free thinking was a corner stone of this great nation.
If you want to be a fag or a fag lover, go ahead. It still is a limited free country.
But if you think all the minority groups should have equal rights, then you know nothing of history or the way things work. Once you give equality to the minority, the majority loses their rights. That's all there is to it.
Ronin already covered this in a way that ... well yeah. WTF do you mean by this ? Just remember that at some point in time being a white middle class male is gunna be a minority .
BUT to try my damnest to bring us back on topic.....
WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE WITH HARMING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE????
WWJD? Forgive, love, teach. Certainly NOT discriminate or hate, let alone politicize.
Byte Stryke
08-09-2012, 16:31
I'm Not trying to put anyone on a target here I just have a few questions/ statements to make on a few of the posts made...
I agree that no one can tell a church what to do . if the church says nope not gunna do it then there you have it . their church their rules. Of course the flip side of that coin is what if the church said not gunna marry a black couple.. would that still be ok ? I wanna say no it would not be .. but then again their church their rules... kinda confusing in my head. ... of course this still brings up the original question how does it hurt traditional marriage ?
sadly, that still happens
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/646643-mississippi-church-refuses-to-marry-black-couple
http://c3412584.r84.cf0.rackcdn.com/120801-wilson-church-wedding.jpg
Charles and Te'Andrea Wilson in their home in Crystal Springs, Mississippi. (WLBT TV/Associated Press) A Mississippi couple says the church where they planned to get married turned them away because they are black.
Charles and Te'Andrea Wilson say they had set the date and mailed invitations, but the day before their wedding they got bad news from the pastor of predominantly white First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs: Some members of the church complained about the black couple having a wedding there.
The Wilsons, who live in nearby Jackson, said they attend the church regularly although they are not members.
Pastor Stan Weatherford told WLBT TV in Jackson he was surprised when a small number of church members opposed holding the wedding at the church.
Unprecedented
"This had never been done before here, so it was setting a new precedent, and there are those who reacted to that because of that," Weatherford said.
Weatherford performed the July 21 ceremony at another church.
"I didn't want to have a controversy within the church, and I didn't want a controversy to affect the wedding of Charles and Te'Andrea. I wanted to make sure their wedding day was a special day," Weatherford said.
WLBT reported that church officials now say they welcome any race. They plan to hold internal meetings on how to move forward.
clublights
08-09-2012, 16:38
sadly, that still happens
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/646643-mississippi-church-refuses-to-marry-black-couple
yeah I thought about this "incident" as I typed that before..
When I first read this story I thought
" Man that's wrong"
Then thinking of this issue I think " you can't tell the church what to do"
Luckily it looks like the government didn't get involved and the church has delt with it internally . which is how I hope that this whole gay marriage thing works out ...
kinda like the baker who wouldn't do the gay wedding cake. if he won't do it go somewhere else.
Pancho Villa
08-09-2012, 16:42
Pretty simple, you don't like a church refusing to marry black people or an interracial couple. don't go to that church. That's all the disapproval you need to give.
Great-Kazoo
08-09-2012, 16:42
And again-some of you call yourselves conservatives
My views are not or have ever been conservative, nor would i label my self as one. I answered based on what i believe in as a person, not from a political point of view.
I will however defend your right to voice your opinion and views w/out hesitation.
Byte Stryke
08-09-2012, 16:42
yeah I thought about this "incident" as I typed that before..
When I first read this story I thought
" Man that's wrong"
Then thinking of this issue I think " you can't tell the church what to do"
Luckily it looks like the government didn't get involved and the church has delt with it internally . which is how I hope that this whole gay marriage thing works out ...
kinda like the baker who wouldn't do the gay wedding cake. if he won't do it go somewhere else.
primary differences are that churches enjoy government support through tax exemption and are not privately held (usually)
The Business, I believe he is fully within his rights to do as he wishes, for whom he wishes and when he wishes.
Troublco
08-09-2012, 16:49
I don't believe that gay marriage is OK. However, I also don't believe it's my job to judge anyone else. (Judge not, lest ye be judged!) It's my personal belief, and nothing more. I'm not going to tell someone that they're going to hell because they're gay, or anything like that. I've known a few gay folks, and for the most part they live their lives like anyone else. I personally think a fair number of Christians have the wrong idea about some things, and this is best demonstrated by the Westboro Baptist Church. Whether they do it simply as a vehicle to sue folks for money or because they truly believe the tripe they spread, they project a very bad image of Christians to society as a whole. I don't agree with almost anything they do, but they do have the freedom to their opinions. The thing they need to think about is that when their time comes, they will be judged for their actions by the only One they ought to be concerned about...God.
Ultimately, I think that the current Gay marriage debate has more to do with special rights than any sort of equality...but that's just my opinion.
lpgasman
08-09-2012, 16:55
I think that's more for citizenship. :)
Even if not married a hetro couple living together is able to put their (opposite sex) partner on their ins & health benefits. Whereas a same sex couple cannot.
Not where I work, they needed to see a copy of my marriage license.
I don't agree with it morally but legally and politically it shouldn't be an issue. Either government should have nothing to do with marriage or everyone should be able to marry whomever they want. I do however understand being against polygamy due to the ability to abuse the system that way.
mevshooter
08-09-2012, 18:05
The divorce rate is ACTUALLY closer to 20+%. The whole "well half of my friends are getting divorced" argument is such a micro observation that it doesn't hold water in the grand scheme of things.
The whole "for every 2 marriages in this country there is one divorce" is a combination of statistics that do not accurately paint the portrait of the divorce rate.
But anyways...
Aloha_Shooter
08-09-2012, 18:06
Asking this question is like asking why 2A supporters aren't satisfied with squirt guns (can't use cap guns, they make noise!).
The reality is that all complaints from the homosexual lobby could be addressed without trying to redefine "marriage" by opening and enforcing legal powers of attorney. Want someone to be able to handle your affairs and visit you in the hospital? A general durable power of attorney should do it all -- if a hospital or employer or bank doesn't want to honor the GDPOA, fix things so they have to.
That's not what the homosexual lobby wants -- they want not just tolerance but endorsement of their lifestyle as normal, even desirable. I couldn't give a hoot in hell if two guys or two girls want to live together or what they want to do behind that door but I object to these stealth tactics designed to make society (and therefore me) endorse lifestyles. Society will or will not accept lifestyles and choices on its own:
Elizabeth: Why can't a woman have two husbands?
Pardner: Because you can't.
Elizabeth: Well, why?
Pardner: You explain it to her, Ben.
Ben: l'd like to oblige, Pardner, but l'll be damned if l can think of a reason. Out here we make up our own rules as we go along.
A man with two wives wants to sell one at auction, nobody thinks twice. lf a town needs females, hijacking 'em seems the natural thing to do.
And if two pardners want to share a wife, why not? This ain't Michigan. lt's gold country. Why, hell, it's the golden country! Untouched and uncontaminated by human hands!
People can look civilisation in the eye and spit!
You don't have to please anybody, don't have to love thy neighbour. lt's wild, human and free, and all over this nation, they preach against it every Sunday. But l don't think God's listening. You know why? Because he's here, in glorious California!
Apparently, Lerner and Loewe were far ahead of their time but the difference is that Ben, Pardner and Elizabeth weren't trying to make anyone accept their arrangement -- and in fact, it broke down once Elizabeth realized she didn't want conventional families to see their unusual "family".
IMHO, marriage has diminished enough in recent years without distorting its meaning.
Rucker61
08-09-2012, 18:18
Asking this question is like asking why 2A supporters aren't satisfied with squirt guns (can't use cap guns, they make noise!).
The reality is that all complaints from the homosexual lobby could be addressed without trying to redefine "marriage" by opening and enforcing legal powers of attorney. Want someone to be able to handle your affairs and visit you in the hospital? A general durable power of attorney should do it all -- if a hospital or employer or bank doesn't want to honor the GDPOA, fix things so they have to.
That's not what the homosexual lobby wants -- they want not just tolerance but endorsement of their lifestyle as normal, even desirable. I couldn't give a hoot in hell if two guys or two girls want to live together or what they want to do behind that door but I object to these stealth tactics designed to make society (and therefore me) endorse lifestyles. Society will or will not accept lifestyles and choices on its own:
Apparently, Lerner and Loewe were far ahead of their time but the difference is that Ben, Pardner and Elizabeth weren't trying to make anyone accept their arrangement -- and in fact, it broke down once Elizabeth realized she didn't want conventional families to see their unusual "family".
IMHO, marriage has diminished enough in recent years without distorting its meaning.
Yeah, like letting coloreds and Asians marry decent God fearing white folk. That was the start of the marriage diminishment all right.
If you define "traditional marriage" as one adult man married to one adult woman, then redefining marriage to one adult person to another adult person, then the harm would be dependent on whether you believe the former definition was of more value than the later definition.
This I believe is a value judgment. Some see no real difference, and for them there is no harm. Others see the redefining of terms as being of great difference and depending on where you stand on the redefinition, you may see the change as harm or improvement.
Marriage is a legal institution. For some, it is also a religious rite or ritual or covenant between man, woman, and God.
As for the issue of what a church may or may not choose to sanction, I will rely on the First Amendment and agree with the statement that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and note that this restriction has also been extended to state and local governments. As for the point of tax exemption, I will stand by Chief Justice John Marshall in Providence Bank v Billings when he stated "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Using both of the above statements, I believe that no establishment of religion should be taxed by federal, state, or local government. IMO, this makes good Constitutional sense to me. YMMV
While I believe there are many people of faith in the United States, IMO the USA is not a Godly nation. Just my opinion.
Be safe.
A bit of derailment, but occasionally the gay rights movement helps hetero people as well. For example, when I started my business I wasn't sure what to do about health insurance. Come to find out my now wife's company (not wife at the time) had benefits offered for "Domestic partners". Due to equal opportunity, they couldn't offer that only to gay, non married couples. So, after showing we lived together, shared a bank account (which we opened for that purpose) and had an xcel bill together, BAM!! I'm eligible for coverage under her employer plan.
It is post tax deductions for that coverage, and it is now pre-tax since we are married and the tax code allows married people to do healthcare pre-tax. But post tax coverage was better than none or independent coverage plans.
Again sorry to derail, but there are times when the pro-gay movement can help people who are hetero as well.
theGinsue
08-09-2012, 20:48
Ok I lied I guess I do have something to add...you really cannot take a single verse out of the Bible and use it for or against any viewpoint. Historical context and the context within the original language are really crucial to understanding any Bible verse. Christians are as wrong for solely using the Leviticus verses as justification against being gay as non-Christians are for using verses to have the "gotcha" moment towards Christians for not following the Old Testament to a T. Context, context, context...
Truth.
Not being argumentative here or looking for a fight, but I need to clear up a common misunderstanding that doesn't directly relate (per se) to the OP's question...
I Just want to know when we get to line up and stone all of the whores and Heretics for these traditional marriage types!
As for the Christian beliefs, you are referencing Old Testament writings. Christianity beliefs these are good for historical understanding and for guidelines for living, but no longer for the "law" or rules of behavior. CHRISTIANITY's belief is that the life, death, resurrection & ascension of Christ started a new Covenant between God & man. This Covenant is what is written in the New Testament and is why you see such a difference in how God is described in the OT (considered by many as vindictive) and the NT (considered a kinder/gentler God). Trying to show that Christians are hypocrite's because we claim that the bible is the word of God yet we no longer stone adulterer's shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of Christianities beliefs.
I didn't bring this up to engage in theological debate in what is supposed to be a non-religious based discussion, but I felt it important to address this misconception where it was stated because it comes up a lot.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled non-religious discussion thread, already in progress.
Byte Stryke
08-09-2012, 20:57
Truth.
Not being argumentative here or looking for a fight, but I need to clear up a common misunderstanding that doesn't directly relate (per se) to the OP's question...
As for the Christian beliefs, you are referencing Old Testament writings. Christianity beliefs these are good for historical understanding and for guidelines for living, but no longer for the "law" or rules of behavior. CHRISTIANITY's belief is that the life, death, resurrection & ascension of Christ started a new Covenant between God & man. This Covenant is what is written in the New Testament and is why you see such a difference in how God is described in the OT (considered by many as vindictive) and the NT (considered a kinder/gentler God). Trying to show that Christians are hypocrite's because we claim that the bible is the word of God yet we no longer stone adulterer's shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of Christianities beliefs.
I didn't bring this up to engage in theological debate in what is supposed to be a non-religious based discussion, but I felt it important to address this misconception where it was stated because it comes up a lot.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled non-religious discussion thread, already in progress.
so you are selecting things from the holy Bible that you do not follow because they are old...
a new guy came along and said bahh, here's a new deal...
but we keep the old stuff there why?
DangerLee_Industries
08-09-2012, 21:11
Why are people always so concerned about what others do especially when it doesn't harm them? I couldn't give a flying fart if my neighbor was in love with his favorite lazboy recliner and wanted to marry it. Now of course when he invited me over to watch a Broncos game I wouldn't want to sit on it but other than that I don't care.
I am not a very religious person but I do believe in God. I don't however believe that just because something was written down about how to live life 100, 1,000, 10,000 years ago would necessarily mean that it should apply now. Everything is constantly evolving rather you want it to or not. That's one thing that's great about being alive is constant change. No matter how hard you try to plan your life every day you wake up its 100% out of your control good or bad.
If a gay couple wants to get married good for them as long as they have the same rules as my wife and I. Telling them no because thats not how it used to be is a chicken shit answer. Evolution isn't just good when it only benefits you........
Marriage is a religious word that should have remained a religious word meaning a relationship between a man and a woman who are joined together in a religious ceremony.
I do not know why The State co-opted the word marriage, The State should have gone with civil union or something similar from the get-go but The State did not.
Now, thanks to The State, we have this problem of homosexuals using the word marriage to define their relationships.
Before you get all upset, know this about my take on homosexuality. True homosexuality is NOT a choice, true homosexuals are born homosexual. If you cannot accept that simple fact then I can only ask you what day you chose to be heterosexual. I cannot tell you what day I chose to be heterosexual, all I know is that I've always liked women.
MOD: trying to keep this from blowing up.
Why are people always so concerned about what others do especially when it doesn't harm them? I couldn't give a flying fart if my neighbor was in love with his favorite lazboy recliner and wanted to marry it. Now of course when he invited me over to watch a Broncos game I wouldn't want to sit on it but other than that I don't care.
I am not a very religious person but I do believe in God. I don't however believe that just because something was written down about how to live life 100, 1,000, 10,000 years ago would necessarily mean that it should apply now. Everything is constantly evolving rather you want it to or not. That's one thing that's great about being alive is constant change. No matter how hard you try to plan your life every day you wake up its 100% out of your control good or bad.
If a gay couple wants to get married good for them as long as they have the same rules as my wife and I. Telling them no because thats not how it used to be is a chicken shit answer. Evolution isn't just good when it only benefits you........
there are two main groups at the heart of this issue as far as religious folk go. there are those that want attention and enjoy judging others. then there are those that truly care for the souls of other people and sometimes say things that sound meaner than they are intended. you have to look at it from a true christians point of view, ie, those that oppose certain lifestyles and "sins" but do so kindly. the fact is, christians believe that those who openly live in sin are doomed to an eternity in hell. certainly many people don't share this point of view and thus get offended when they are told something they are doing is wrong. understandable. but lets just pretend for a minute that what christians believe is true. lets just pretend said christians have had supernatural experiences that have led them to believe there is no doubt god exists and that the bible is truth. what kind of person would they be to sit back and let others who may not be yet aware of this truth to go to hell? thats why many have such a problem with homosexuality. its no worse than any other sin according to the bible, but a sin nonetheless. clearly society is moving towards acceptance of this behavior, that bothers some christians.
the more socially acceptable certain behaviors or lifestyles become, the more difficult it becomes to warn people of the dangers. now, for me personally, i don't pretend that my religious beliefs should reflect polticial and societal rules and laws. in fact i think that is a dangerous game to play. i have quite a few friends who are homosexual. i get along great with them. i don't feel yet close enough to them to confront them about my beliefs, although they know at a basic level what they are. for me, confronting friends on things i believe to be wrong in their lives takes a long time and i do so VERY carefully. i know that 90% of the time they will ignore me and thats ok, but i can't have a clear conscience without discussing it with them. its never caused problems. we move on our merry way and thats the end of it. the problem is many christians have become political and try to warn people on a grand scale which always comes off as judging. personally any religious beliefs people have i think are best kept amongst your close friends and family because they know you are not judgemental and simply care for their well being, even if you don't see eye to eye.
as far as things being old and evolving and such, the thing there is that i believe humans have looked for absolute truth since the beginning of time. we want there to be true right and wrong, the kind that lasts for eternity and is never changing. to not have this is a world of chaos in the minds of some. if there is no clear right and wrong, and it is always changing, what do we follow and why? it seems natural to me to desire such a thing. some find it in the bible which is why these arguments come up.
so you are selecting things from the holy Bible that you do not follow because they are old...
a new guy came along and said bahh, here's a new deal...
but we keep the old stuff there why?
if you truly want to know the answer to that (and aren't just trying to poke fun at people's beliefs) you need to either study it in your free time or sit down with someone for a few hours. its not complicated, but the evidence and explanations are long and span the entire bible. certainly not something that can be fit into some message board posts. do know there are reasons, and good ones. it was the main question i had and studied over the last 8 years.
I am interested in the age group here as far as who is so vehemently against it to just against it but let them do their thing versus those who do not have as much if any issues. Has the concept of same sex marriage been at the forefront during most of the formative years of the younger members of the board that it has become less of an issue?
for the record I am 25 and I believe that love is love and they should be able to pen that love in the form of marriage just like the rest of us if they so choose.
theGinsue
08-09-2012, 22:47
I see what you did there.
Elizabeth: Why can't a woman have two husbands?
Pardner: Because you can't.
Elizabeth: Well, why?
Pardner: You explain it to her, Ben.
Ben: l'd like to oblige, Pardner, but l'll be damned if l can think of a reason. Out here we make up our own rules as we go along.
A man with two wives wants to sell one at auction, nobody thinks twice. lf a town needs females, hijacking 'em seems the natural thing to do.
And if two pardners want to share a wife, why not? This ain't Michigan. lt's gold country. Why, hell, it's the golden country! Untouched and uncontaminated by human hands!
People can look civilisation in the eye and spit!
You don't have to please anybody, don't have to love thy neighbour. lt's wild, human and free, and all over this nation, they preach against it every Sunday. But l don't think God's listening. You know why? Because he's here, in glorious California!
The first thing you know...
They civilize left & civilize right
'till nothin is left & nothin is right
They civilize freedom 'till no one is free
No one except, by coincidence, ME!
I am interested in the age group here as far as who is so vehemently against it to just against it but let them do their thing versus those who do not have as much if any issues. Has the concept of same sex marriage been at the forefront during most of the formative years of the younger members of the board that it has become less of an issue?
for the record I am 25 and I believe that love is love and they should be able to pen that love in the form of marriage just like the rest of us if they so choose.
i am 26, and i think there is no doubt the younger generation tends to be more flexible on their views. most of our parents grew up in the 60's and 70's when there was a lot of experimentation and changing of values. of course we also live in the era of political correctness, which i think can be good and bad, depending how you slice it. most of my parents' aged people who are against gay marriage don't seem to be able to articulate why. they are because they are supposed to be. thats not all of them, but many. the younger generation, in my experience, has a more diverse opinion on the subject but generally can give more details as to EXACTLY what they believe and why. although i am conservative and thus stick to traditional beliefs in many ways, i do think there is a lot of good that comes from these types of issues being open and debated. kids these days are having to think for themselves much more than they used to and determine what they want to believe in. i think many make the wrong decisions, but i am glad they have the choice. i think not long ago many people sort of went through the motions because they were told to.
Byte - The simple answer to your OT vs NT take on Christianity is found in Matthew 5:17 Jesus speaking "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Religion predates the state. The state did not co-opt marriage, however western civilization's history has a complicated, interrelated progression of both state and church. When the head of the state was also the head of the church, the rules of religion were closely related but not the same as the rules of the state. A classic story illustrating this point would be that of Thomas Becket and Henry II of England.
I have tried, based upon the OP's request to refrain from making this a religious issue and tried to leave the Bible out of my posts. Once again, I must admit my failures. For me to consider an issue without my faith would be to reason with only a portion of my brain. For me, my faith is part of who I am and I can no more make a reasonable judgment about any issue without considering my faith than I could drive a car while blind folded and wearing a straight jacket.
We are who we are. To be any less would make us less than we should be.
Be safe.
I am interested in the age group here
I'm 44 and quite honestly couldn't give two bat shits less what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. And if 2 dudes want to play hide the salami, as long as I'm not one of the dudes, it's really none of my business. If 2 hot broads want to go at it...I want to be invited to watch, if not invited, It's really none of my business
If they need to call their relationship a "marriage" ...let them, but they should be subject to both the good and the bad of that legal contract. Their marriage has ZERO effect on my marriage.
in full disclosure, I have 2 lesbian aunts (that both married 2 lesbian women, so I guess I have 4 lesbian aunts). One couple is the happiest couple I've ever seen in my life....they have 2 kids (both from previous marriages to men) and a granddaughter, and other than the lack of a penis in their relationship they are a lesbian version of The Cleavers. The other couple rank with the must unhappy couple I've ever seen
I have 2 daughters, ages 9 and 10. It's not a life I would choose for them, but if it turns out they're gay, I only hope for their happiness. I wouldn't love them any less because of whom they choose to love.
Also for the record, I'm a pretty religious guy, raised Catholic, and their stance on "the gays" is one of the things that has turned me away from the church. It bothers me that for years they have been practicing homosexual pedophilia, but condemn consenting adults. My God is a loving, forgiving God that does not condemn a person to eternal damnation because they love someone....(I'm sure some will throw bible quotes here, explaining that it a mortal sin)
I'll actually be going to a "lesbian wedding" (the 2nd I've attended-neither were my aunts) in September up in Estes Park. A woman my wife works with is getting married. One of them is/was really sick with cancer and, as I understand it, was not covered under her partner's insurance because they weren't married (even though they were a couple for almost 20 years)
Great-Kazoo
08-10-2012, 01:06
56 and do not care. Your life style you enjoy it.
I use the same context for gun owners when the opposing team starts their shit.
So you feel human beings should be able to choose their life style
OT: Why yes everyone should be able to enjoy what they believe in.
Me: Great now explain to me again why same sex couples have a right to enjoy themselves. BUT as a gun owner i cannot because you don't agree with my life style choices? Bit hypocritical there you are. As always they get quiet and wander away.
beast556
08-10-2012, 01:21
I think as with everything now a days the liberal media is blowing this whole gay marriage thing out of controll and feeding lots of fule to the fire. Every one I talk with could give 2 shits about gay marriage. Stop wasting our tax money on this stupid shit and move on and let them get married who gives a shit, this isint 1940.
Ok, I've given this some thought and have devised the end all be all point to this whole thing.
Show of hands, who here thinks America should be under Sharia Law? I see none, great. So with that in mind, do you think it would be beneficial to deny people something based on a religious belief via the law? How is Christian-inspired law any different from Sharia law? When you legislate religious morals you step into the mud of tyranny- that's an idea introduced by Thomas Jefferson (I don't know the exact quote so I paraphrased it). There are religious ideas that clash with each other, look at Hindi vs Judaism, one says cows are sacred, the other says don't eat pork- but then you have the Protestants that can eat both, and then they go home and have a little fireman time, but oops, the Catholics get riled up because "every seed is sacred." See the conflict? Best to keep religion out of my government and my government out of religion. [Beer]
Great-Kazoo
08-10-2012, 11:12
Best to keep religion out of my government and my government out of religion
Keep the .gov AND religion out of the bedroom, In fact stay the fuk out of my house & life, unless i specifically ask you for help.
This is a non-issue in my eyes. I don't care about same gender marriage as it will not effect my marriage. If you can find happiness in a marriage then go for it. People will say it is nothing more that gay activism masking itself as civil rights. I guess my only issue would be if there where children involved. It might just be my own ignorance here but has there been any studies on the effects of a gay marriage on children of that marriage? I would hope that there is no issue there. I guess in general, I dont care about what two adults deceide to do but I do care if those actions are detremental to a child.
kanekutter05
08-10-2012, 11:14
Ok, I've given this some thought and have devised the end all be all point to this whole thing.
Show of hands, who here thinks America should be under Sharia Law? I see none, great. So with that in mind, do you think it would be beneficial to deny people something based on a religious belief via the law? How is Christian-inspired law any different from Sharia law? When you legislate religious morals you step into the mud of tyranny- that's an idea introduced by Thomas Jefferson (I don't know the exact quote so I paraphrased it). There are religious ideas that clash with each other, look at Hindi vs Judaism, one says cows are sacred, the other says don't eat pork- but then you have the Protestants that can eat both, and then they go home and have a little fireman time, but oops, the Catholics get riled up because "every seed is sacred." See the conflict? Best to keep religion out of my government and my government out of religion. [Beer]
I'll even one up you there...how about we leave it up to the state governments? There doesn't have to be a federal law, just leave it up to the states. If a state wants to legalize gay marriage, then great. If you don't want to live somewhere where gay marriage is legal, then just move. I realize it's not as cut and dry as that in practical application, but really if it bothers you that much then moving would become a priority. If you really want to live in a state that has laws on the books that reflect Biblical (or Muslim or Jewish or Buddist or Hindu) principles, then move to one that is willing to do that.
bellavite1
08-10-2012, 11:32
Equal legal and civil rights yes.
Marriage no: these days of common-law union one does (or should) get married only for the traditional value of it.
Nothing traditional about same sex marriage.
Equal legal and civil rights yes.
Marriage no: these days of common-law union one does (or should) get married only for the traditional value of it.
Nothing traditional about same sex marriage.
That I agree with. If they want to have their union for tax and insurance purposes so be it but they should not be married.
Never in human history has there been so much controversy of the mislabeling of a word. The way I see it, and it should be this way- Marriage = You, and man/woman you're engaged to (opposite sex) goes before a preacher/priest/rabbi/imam/whatever and before the eyes of [your God here] and witnesses and becomes a union of two people. Civil Union = same as marriage only legal in the eyes of the government and no religious affiliation at all. Man and woman need both, gays need only the latter. Done! Problem solved we can all dance around the campfire singing kumbaya!
Rucker61
08-10-2012, 13:03
Never in human history has there been so much controversy of the mislabeling of a word. The way I see it, and it should be this way- Marriage = You, and man/woman you're engaged to (opposite sex) goes before a preacher/priest/rabbi/imam/whatever and before the eyes of [your God here] and witnesses and becomes a union of two people. Civil Union = same as marriage only legal in the eyes of the government and no religious affiliation at all. Man and woman need both, gays need only the latter. Done! Problem solved we can all dance around the campfire singing kumbaya!
I thought about this earlier and came up with "church-marriage" and "court-marriage".
I thought about this earlier and came up with "church-marriage" and "court-marriage".
Careful though, that whole "marriage" word tends to get under the skin of religious types... Why not just give the homo populous their own word and let them share it with the atheists. [Coffee]
Rucker61
08-10-2012, 13:32
Careful though, that whole "marriage" word tends to get under the skin of religious types... Why not just give the homo populous their own word and let them share it with the atheists. [Coffee]
Given the choice, most gays and atheists I know would prefer to get under the skin of the religious types.
I was considering this issue from another point of view.
If a 30 year old man walked into the County Clerk's Office and applied for a marriage license. The other adult consenting party was the man's 28 year old sister. Would this be an issue?
If a 65 year old consenting woman walked into the County Clerk's Office and applied for a marriage license. The other consenting adult party was the woman's 35 year old son. Would this be an issue?
What boundaries, if any, does your local political jurisdiction place upon the two parties who wish to enter into a legally binding marriage?
Why does a court marriage only have to be between two consenting adults? Why not six consenting adults?
IMO, this is a legal issue and therefore a political issue. If no one cared, then the law would be changed, as it has been in several jurisdictions. The interesting part of the reinterpretation of the laws regarding marriage is how the courts have taken a leading role in redefining what marriage is and what types of parties can enter into this contract. I think this leading role by the courts is what causes so many people to associate the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's with the same sex marriage movement of today.
Given the choice, most gays and atheists I know would prefer to get under the skin of the religious types.
And that's the problem with America. The two will never coexist as long as one (or both) are intolerant of each other's views. And that's why I have no respect for those gays and atheists and visa versa for the religious folks that can't accept differing views.
Aloha_Shooter
08-10-2012, 13:38
I'm not particularly religious but I AM a stickler on not defining the language. This attempt to redefine "marriage" (or for that matter, "we the people" or Occupy Whatever's "99%" that's really less than 20%) is what really bugs me about many of the left wing movements. Want to change the Constitution to fit modern culture? Fine, there's a mechanism provided to do that -- just quit trying to distort language and law in order to present America with "change" as a fait accompli.
BlasterBob
08-10-2012, 14:00
OK... Now after reading all these opinions, I believe just I'll go over to Chick-fil-a for a nice chicken sandwich and follow it up with a nice cake from that recently made famous cake making place in the Denver metro area......[Tooth]
I guess my being 75 years old kinda influences my view of this rather unimportant matter.
SA Friday
08-10-2012, 14:07
A bit of derailment, but occasionally the gay rights movement helps hetero people as well. For example, when I started my business I wasn't sure what to do about health insurance. Come to find out my now wife's company (not wife at the time) had benefits offered for "Domestic partners". Due to equal opportunity, they couldn't offer that only to gay, non married couples. So, after showing we lived together, shared a bank account (which we opened for that purpose) and had an xcel bill together, BAM!! I'm eligible for coverage under her employer plan.
It is post tax deductions for that coverage, and it is now pre-tax since we are married and the tax code allows married people to do healthcare pre-tax. But post tax coverage was better than none or independent coverage plans.
Again sorry to derail, but there are times when the pro-gay movement can help people who are hetero as well.
Not a derailment at all, its the original question of the thread. Ironically, short of taxes, I think we've pretty much established through pages of posts that short of tax breaks the difference is PURELY based on religious beliefs originating over 2000 years ago and rife with contradiction.
I don't think many here, or anywhere, are arguing their religious beliefs should be grounds for law. However, the people who do claim that just happen to be obnoxiously loud which is why it seems they have a bigger following than they do. Again, government shouldn't even be involved in marriage. Just let people do what they want and don't give any benefits or breaks to anyone.
Ok, I've given this some thought and have devised the end all be all point to this whole thing.
Show of hands, who here thinks America should be under Sharia Law? I see none, great. So with that in mind, do you think it would be beneficial to deny people something based on a religious belief via the law? How is Christian-inspired law any different from Sharia law? When you legislate religious morals you step into the mud of tyranny- that's an idea introduced by Thomas Jefferson (I don't know the exact quote so I paraphrased it). There are religious ideas that clash with each other, look at Hindi vs Judaism, one says cows are sacred, the other says don't eat pork- but then you have the Protestants that can eat both, and then they go home and have a little fireman time, but oops, the Catholics get riled up because "every seed is sacred." See the conflict? Best to keep religion out of my government and my government out of religion. [Beer]
Does a general durable power of attorney work both ways? What if the power of attorney gets sick? Don't you have to give up some sort of rights when you sign over power of attorney, or have to be handicapped in some way? Generally poa is asigned when someone is unable to handle their own aFfairs. How then, ey ble to handle the affairs of others if they can't handle their own? Want to see a serious divorce disaster? Get two people going through a bitter "divorce" who hold each other's power of attorney. Finally, does holding someone's power of attorney mean you are entitled to their social security after they die like a marriage?
http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n566/rutz777/clint.jpg
Does a general durable power of attorney work both ways? What if the power of attorney gets sick? Don't you have to give up some sort of rights when you sign over power of attorney, or have to be handicapped in some way? Generally poa is asigned when someone is unable to handle their own aFfairs. How then, ey ble to handle the affairs of others if they can't handle their own? Want to see a serious divorce disaster? Get two people going through a bitter "divorce" who hold each other's power of attorney. Finally, does holding someone's power of attorney mean you are entitled to their social security after they die like a marriage?
Do we have an answer to this question? Can you have power of attorney over someone, if someone else has power of attorney over you?
clublights
08-15-2012, 05:45
Well I have to say :
other then a couple little spats where stuff got a bit outta control I'm pleasantly surprised we all behaved so well .
I feel 90% of the posts got off my original topic but they were highly informative.
Everyones answers and debates ( yes even tristans) gave me a bit more insight then before we started tho Cstone's post of the following helped the most on my original topic ( in my opinion)
If you define "traditional marriage" as one adult man married to one adult woman, then redefining marriage to one adult person to another adult person, then the harm would be dependent on whether you believe the former definition was of more value than the later definition.
This I believe is a value judgment. Some see no real difference, and for them there is no harm. Others see the redefining of terms as being of great difference and depending on where you stand on the redefinition, you may see the change as harm or improvement.
Marriage is a legal institution. For some, it is also a religious rite or ritual or covenant between man, woman, and God.
As for the issue of what a church may or may not choose to sanction, I will rely on the First Amendment and agree with the statement that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and note that this restriction has also been extended to state and local governments. As for the point of tax exemption, I will stand by Chief Justice John Marshall in Providence Bank v Billings when he stated "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Using both of the above statements, I believe that no establishment of religion should be taxed by federal, state, or local government. IMO, this makes good Constitutional sense to me. YMMV
While I believe there are many people of faith in the United States, IMO the USA is not a Godly nation. Just my opinion.
Be safe.
I feel SAFriday summed it all up the best with this :
Not a derailment at all, its the original question of the thread. Ironically, short of taxes, I think we've pretty much established through pages of posts that short of tax breaks the difference is PURELY based on religious beliefs originating over 2000 years ago and rife with contradiction.
I HONESTLY thank EVERYONE for the answers they gave, and I thank the mod's wholeheartedly for allowing our debate to go on.
This thread is part of what AMERICA is all about. Discourse with opposing views that open both sides eyes.. even if just a little bit.
If the Mods wish to lock the thread at this point I will understand. if you all choose to let it go on I get that too but I've gotten all I think I can from it at this point.
Again...
THANK YOU ALL!!!!
Aloha_Shooter
08-15-2012, 09:43
Do we have an answer to this question? Can you have power of attorney over someone, if someone else has power of attorney over you?
Sorry, I haven't been monitoring this question. Yes, you can have power of attorney for each other. If you questions someone's competency, even for a brief period, you revoke that power of attorney. I would expect revoking powers of attorney would be one of the very first things people would do when contemplating a split -- if they don't, the consequences are much the same as you could expect for a bitter divorce (think "War of the Roses").
You lose no rights when you issue a POA although you have given someone else the power to act as you. My mother holds a durable general POA and has for years. I did this in the event I was incapacitated while on active duty -- it allows her pay my bills using my funds, sign contracts (e.g., to rent or sell my home), etc.
If the issue is a hospital not observing the POA for visitation or other reasons then the reform is to fix the hospital's policies, NOT further diminish the concept of marriage. I have to wonder why the media and Left are so deadset on pushing homosexual marriage when they are just as opposed to polygamy. At least polygamy has deep historic and cultural roots to draw on for its legitimacy -- and it can be further extended into broader concepts of "family" like Heinlein's "line marriages". Side issues like this are why I firmly believe the push for homosexual marriage is less about "love" and the reasons given by homosexual activists and more about destroying any traditional structures or organizations within European or American society. If for nothing else, I want to hold the line until they come up with more rational arguments and consistency in their reasoning.
A durable general POA does NOT give you rights to someone else's Social Security after they die. This aspect of SS is a holdover from another era anyway and I think is a red herring since the SS system is an underfunded Ponzi scheme anyway -- the very last thing it needs is to get even MORE freeloaders dumped into its system.
If the issue is a hospital not observing the POA for visitation or other reasons then the reform is to fix the hospital's policies, NOT further diminish the concept of marriage. I have to wonder why the media and Left are so deadset on pushing homosexual marriage when they are just as opposed to polygamy. At least polygamy has deep historic and cultural roots to draw on for its legitimacy -- and it can be further extended into broader concepts of "family" like Heinlein's "line marriages". Side issues like this are why I firmly believe the push for homosexual marriage is less about "love" and the reasons given by homosexual activists and more about destroying any traditional structures or organizations within European or American society. If for nothing else, I want to hold the line until they come up with more rational arguments and consistency in their reasoning.
So to see if I understand you correctly, you are against gay marriage because it's "about destroying any traditional structures or organization within society?" So if two people want their union (IE: Relationship) legally recognized for the various benefits that comes with a legal marriage it's all part of some scheme to destroy these traditional values you hold so dear? So does divorce play into your beliefs? Speaking of tradition, many cultures recognize that you can have multiple wives (like in Islam), but what if a woman wants to adopt the same tradition only reversed and have multiple husbands? It's not traditional, so we shouldn't adapt to the changing social environment we live in, right?
What's a more rational argument than enjoying the same rights and benefits, as well as the legitimacy and recognition, that "traditional" couples enjoy?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.