Gay marriage...

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by minkbarn

I live in Massachusetts. Gay marriage has been legal here for years. I has not changed anything for anyone else; everyone just lives their lives, same as before.

I've been married for more than 20 years. Gay people being married has no effect on my marriage or anyone else's.

I attended a gay wedding early on when the law was first passed. It was one of the best weddings I've ever been to just because there was that added emotion about exercising this new freedom.

It's just two people who want to be exclusively together for the rest of their lives, same as me and my wife.

You probably don't mind them teaching your kids that gay marriage is ok. And you probably don't mind your tax dollars being spent to teach other people that gay marriage is ok.

[minkbarn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

If they can live together and call themselves partners, then why do they need to be married? Why call it a marriage, why not just a party to let everyone know they are going to be exclusive and live together forever.

It's a matter of freedom. Liberty is people choosing for themselves.

[minkbarn]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

You probably don't mind them teaching your kids that gay marriage is ok. And you probably don't mind your tax dollars being spent to teach other people that gay marriage is ok.

Who is "them?" My property taxes go to the local schools. There's no gay marriage program in the schools.

I'll repeat this: We've had gay marriage here for years. It hasn't changed anything for anyone except the people getting married. Everyone just goes on like they did before. No one has been hurt. No one makes a big deal about it. It's just people going on about their lives.

It's not a matter of whether or not I think it's ok; it's a matter of freedom. This is what liberty is, people making their own choices.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

when you are willling to have a grown up conversation, I'll be happy to discuss this with you.

sure, when you "grow up" and stop the "this is about schools teaching homosexuality is good" mantra...

it isn't. the issue is about tolerance and respect for people regardless of their chosen partner's sex.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by minkbarn

It's a matter of freedom. Liberty is people choosing for themselves.

They have the freedom now. They want the $$$$ benefits.

If they choose to be life partners (married) they can be. They just don't get the $$$$ benefits. The fight is over legalization for monetary gain.

If it were actually over the fact of being life partners (which is what most people on both sides want you to think) -- I might have a different view. I just don't know why it is a governmental issue. No one comes in their house and arrests them for living together. No one keeps them from committing sin in the privacy of their own home (heterosexual couples either). The only issue comes when talking about the legal business partnership and the money involved.


True Marriage is sanctified by God, not by government -- and sorry but man just doesn't have the ability.

"Men will fight to win the right, to justify their sin"

[minkbarn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

They have the freedom now. They want the $$$$ benefits.

If they choose to be life partners (married) they can be. They just don't get the $$$$ benefits. The fight is over legalization for monetary gain.

If it were actually over the fact of being life partners (which is what most people on both sides want you to think) -- I might have a different view. I just don't know why it is a governmental issue. No one comes in their house and arrests them for living together. No one keeps them from committing sin in the privacy of their own home (heterosexual couples either). The only issue comes when talking about the legal business partnership and the money involved.


True Marriage is sanctified by God, not by government -- and sorry but man just doesn't have the ability.

"Men will fight to win the right, to justify their sin"

Speaking for myself, I didn't think about money when I got married. I got married because I loved someone.

I imagine most marriages are for that reason, gay or not. The difference between cohabitation and marriage is more than money.

[Flacolaco]

I think the monetary benefits are some of it, but I think most of it is wanting to be granted legitimacy from the state as a means of gaining acceptance from society as a whole...since they know they'll never be granted legitimacy from Christianity or from God.

Mavdog says they want tolerance and respect. Well I think tolerance is there for the most part. If they want to live together in all their sinfulness then that's fine by me. It's your right as an American to choose how you live your life. The respect part will come much later as the moral decay of the country snowballs.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by minkbarn

Who is "them?" My property taxes go to the local schools. There's no gay marriage program in the schools.

I'll repeat this: We've had gay marriage here for years. It hasn't changed anything for anyone except the people getting married. Everyone just goes on like they did before. No one has been hurt. No one makes a big deal about it. It's just people going on about their lives.

It's not a matter of whether or not I think it's ok; it's a matter of freedom. This is what liberty is, people making their own choices.

"them" is obviously anyone teaching your kids for the state.
There doesn't have to be a "program." Here's alot of examples:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/m...ts_of_ssm.html
It's obviously made things different for a lot of people.
The only reason you can say that no one has been hurt is because you think that the stories related in the link above don't hurt anyone.

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

They have the freedom now. They want the $$$$ benefits.

If they choose to be life partners (married) they can be. They just don't get the $$$$ benefits. The fight is over legalization for monetary gain.

If it were actually over the fact of being life partners (which is what most people on both sides want you to think) -- I might have a different view. I just don't know why it is a governmental issue. No one comes in their house and arrests them for living together. No one keeps them from committing sin in the privacy of their own home (heterosexual couples either). The only issue comes when talking about the legal business partnership and the money involved.


True Marriage is sanctified by God, not by government -- and sorry but man just doesn't have the ability.

"Men will fight to win the right, to justify their sin"

It's their RIGHT to sin. They can sin all they want. SIN, SIN, SIN, SIN, SIN. Have at thee. There are consequences to those sins, sure. But those are between each person and their God. If marriage is available to one, it should be available to all. Money shouldn't factor into the equation at all. It's a civil rights issue. If it's available to SOME. It should be available to all.

And, for dad - I'm strictly talking about humans here...those with social security numbers and such.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

It's their RIGHT to sin. They can sin all they want. SIN, SIN, SIN, SIN, SIN. Have at thee. There are consequences to those sins, sure. But those are between each person and their God. If marriage is available to one, it should be available to all. Money shouldn't factor into the equation at all. It's a civil rights issue. If it's available to SOME. It should be available to all.

Despite my religious beliefs, I tend to agree with this stance. As much as I would prefer society's views to match my own, the reality is it's not up to the government to enforce things based on religious views.

My only caveat is this: Once you start saying that any two humans have the right to marry, what do you do about incest and things of that nature?

[minkbarn]

That website seems a little biased, don't you think? Maybe even hysterical.

A friend of mine is head of curriculum for the local school district. (We have one of the top public schools in the state.) He has a difficult job and we just spoke the other day about all his problems.

Never once has he mentioned gay anything to do with curriculum. It just is not an issue here.

[minkbarn]

All this speculation about the disintegration of society is not happening. As I said, in my state gay marriage has been legal for years. NOTHING else has changed. There has been no disintegration of anything.

Rest easy. There is no threat from this.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by minkbarn

Speaking for myself, I didn't think about money when I got married. I got married because I loved someone.

I imagine most marriages are for that reason, gay or not. The difference between cohabitation and marriage is more than money.

Really?

Most people marry because they want to spend the rest of their lives together (at least I hope). I know some that marry out of convenience and monetary upgrade ( military pay), and some just to get out of a bad household. Regardless of the reason -- marriage is still a a sacred thing between two individuals -- or it is a meaningless partnership for the advantage of both sides.

If you got married, and it is a sacred thing -- then you didn't need the government telling you that you were married. You entered into the partnership willingly and with the thought that it would last forever. It doesn't matter whether others like it or not, whether people say you are married or not -- you made this partnership between you and your spouse.

If on the other hand you made it for self fulfilling fun, or because of convenience, then the legality of it matters, because eventually you will have to pay the piper so to speak.

The only reason I can see for gay couples to want to claim to be married is for monetary gain, or because they want others to say that it is OK for them to do what they are doing...ie justify their sin. They are going to do it either way -- they just want others to say that they are right and it is OK, and to be able to profit.

Owning a slave was legal at one time in this country. It didn't make it right, but people justified it by saying it was legal. Women couldn't vote in this country at one time, didn't make it right, but it was illegal for them. Justifying sin by fighting for the right to do it -- doesn't make it right.

I have no doubt that many gay couples just want what they deem to be "fair". Whose version of "fair" do we follow though? I mean there were well meaning people in Hitler's SS who just followed orders. There are well meaning Muslims who will blow up innocent people because they want their version of "fair". There are many people out there, who want to make sure that their version of "fair" is what everyone else is going by.....ie they want to make the rules.

The rules I choose to follow though are made by God. If that conflicts with government, then I choose my interpretation of what God wants. I choose God - his will, his way.

With that said, he calls being gay an abomination. He also tells me not to judge. So I don't judge any individual, but I also don't condone what they do. I will not say it is OK. I will not vote for it to be OK. I will though treat every individual with respect -- whether they are a different race, sexual orientation, religion or gender. I will not condone things that are against my interpretation of what God says is OK.

I accept that many here don't feel this way. I accept that my choices may eventually get me thrown in jail, or killed. I accept this - because I will go to my deathbed choosing God and my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I have been in a spiritual battle for years -- physical and mental battles don't scare me anymore because I know who I follow.

[Underdog]

If you allow the government to dictate things like who can and can't get married, then you're also opening up the door to them being able to dictate things like which god you can and can't worship... Do you really want the government having that much control over your life?

I say let them stick to building roads, defending our borders and keeping our currency strong (things they've been failing at recently), but stay the hell out of our personal lives!


(why don't Republicans believe in "small government" anymore????)

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Despite my religious beliefs, I tend to agree with this stance. As much as I would prefer society's views to match my own, the reality is it's not up to the government to enforce things based on religious views.

My only caveat is this: Once you start saying that any two humans have the right to marry, what do you do about incest and things of that nature?

That's a good point. I tend to think that incest is almost ALWAYS between a child and an adult, but I could be wrong on that point. But otherwise, I see no stance for denying it other than "ickiness" factor and potential birth defects of offspring. Am I comfortable denying marriage on "potential" defects? I don't know...Blood tests before all marriage to verify DNA isn't feasible. I just don't know if there's a good way to defend the right of the state to deny that also.

[Flacolaco]

If you allow the government to dictate things like who can and can't get married, then you're also opening up the door to them being able to dictate things like which god you can and can't worship... Do you really want the government having that much control over your life?

You say "the government" but what you have to remember is that you are the government. In this case, the people of California were the government, and the people of California voted against gay-marriage. It's not simply a case of staying out of each others personal lives, but the shaping of our society. That's something that belongs to all of us, and it should be voted on.

(Whether or not you feel that allowing gay marriage or banning it would play an active role in shaping our society is a different discussion..)

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

You say "the government" but what you have to remember is that you are the government. In this case, the people of California were the government, and the people of California voted against gay-marriage. It's not simply a case of staying out of each others personal lives, but the shaping of our society. That's something that belongs to all of us, and it should be voted on.

(Whether or not you feel that allowing gay marriage or banning it would play an active role in shaping our society is a different discussion..)

And hey, I agree that it boils down to voters. I also know that the hypocrisy it creates disgusts me.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by minkbarn

All this speculation about the disintegration of society is not happening. As I said, in my state gay marriage has been legal for years. NOTHING else has changed. There has been no disintegration of anything.

Rest easy. There is no threat from this.

Some people have conducted statistical studies on Sweden, Norway and Denmark (three of the early adopters of same-sex marriage legislation). It looks like there is an impact on marriage rates, out-of-wedlock births, and single parent families.

http://www.urbancure.org/article.asp?id=2999
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/660zypwj.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/...0602280810.asp

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

You say "the government" but what you have to remember is that you are the government. In this case, the people of California were the government, and the people of California voted against gay-marriage. It's not simply a case of staying out of each others personal lives, but the shaping of our society. That's something that belongs to all of us, and it should be voted on.

(Whether or not you feel that allowing gay marriage or banning it would play an active role in shaping our society is a different discussion..)

I don't think marriage (or any basic human rights) should be limited by the law - just like religion can't be...

What if the people of California voted to outlaw Christianity?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I don't think marriage (or any basic human rights) should be limited by the law - just like religion can't be...

What if the people of California voted to outlaw Christianity?

Yeah I was just about to post something similar. It's a valid argument in some respect by Flaco, but some issues simply shouldn't be left up to the people. I'm sure during the Civil Rights momement people probably woudl have liked the right to vote on desegregation as well.

The point about voting on the validity of religion is an even better one because it moves past the debate point of "choice".

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I don't think marriage (or any basic human rights) should be limited by the law - just like religion can't be...

What if the people of California voted to outlaw Christianity?

Marriage is not a basic human right though, and we limit religion every day. Did we not say that polygamy is against the law -- even though the Mormans said it is within their religious right?

We legislate morality all the time. If not, then why can't I have a liquor store/topless bar next to a school. Why is "the oldest profession in the world" outlawed? Why isn't "the second oldest profession in the world, which closely resembles the first (politics)" outlawed?

There are three sets of rules that govern man. Gods rules, Constitution, and Man's rules.

We have to choose which we will follow, and only the rules we are willing to enforce are really laws.

[fluid.forty.one]

I don't understand why people throw out stuff like incest and beastiality when we're talking about allowing gay marriage. Incest is illegal and either beastiality is illegal or should be. Being gay isn't illegal.

There's the difference

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

I don't understand why people throw out stuff like incest and beastiality when we're talking about allowing gay marriage. Incest is illegal and either beastiality is illegal or should be. Being gay isn't illegal.

There's the difference

The question of incest comes in because people say that any two humans should be allowed to marry. Beastiality is a different story, that's ridiculous.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

I don't understand why people throw out stuff like incest and beastiality when we're talking about allowing gay marriage. Incest is illegal and either beastiality is illegal or should be. Being gay isn't illegal.

There's the difference

You aren't old enough to remember sodomy laws?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Marriage is not a basic human right though

Marriage isn't a basic human right? How???

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by jthig32

The question of incest comes in because people say that any two humans should be allowed to marry. Beastiality is a different story, that's ridiculous.

I think it's ridiculous as well, I only brought it up because I've heard people use the argument before.

And, like I said, two incestuous human beings are not allowed to even *be* together, so I don't think allowing gay marriage will lead us down that path.

Same thing with say a 13 year old and a 50 year old. Sure they're two humans, but they're not legally allowed to be together, let alone get married.

Gay couples on the other hand ARE allowed to be together.

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

You aren't old enough to remember sodomy laws?

The difference between a Gay sex act and an Insectual sex act are different by our societies standards, at least at this moment. Of course Gays weren't always allowed to be open. But we used to have Slaves too. Women didn't used to be able to vote. Things are different now, and I would say a majority of the country is OKAY with gays being together. Besides the stereotypical south, I don't think Gays get a lot of trouble if they are just "being". The trouble lies in the marriage.

In the future, I don't think incest will ever fly. Not even with .1% of the nation. That's the difference.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Marriage is not a basic human right though, and we limit religion every day. Did we not say that polygamy is against the law -- even though the Mormans said it is within their religious right?

Right. As I said above, government is in the business of marriage to promote it as a vital part of the way our society is constructed, and you can't logically argue that government doesn't have the right to limit who can marry, because government already does that.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Marriage isn't a basic human right? How???

Why do you say it is?

Is their anything in America that says I have to marry? Can I sleep with one I want and not get married as long as both of us agree?

There are two forms of marriage -- neither of which is a basic human right. One form is a Sanctified Marriage. This is God given, and comes with true love (from God for God is love), and comes when a man leaves his parents and takes on his wife. It is defined by God.

Then their is a Legal Marriage. This is a governmental thing that says that you have a legal right to you partners money if/when you die, or you end the partnership. This right is given by the government and is governed by the government as to what you can and can't do.

You can be involved in one or both of these. They are mutually exclusive though, and the rules are different for each of them.

They are not a basic human right to breathe, live, work, etc though.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I don't think marriage (or any basic human rights) should be limited by the law - just like religion can't be...

What if the people of California voted to outlaw Christianity?

They can't do that. Read the 1st Amendment.

[jthig32]

But in the other limits on marriage the government has a non-faith based reason. Polygamy may be the shakiest of these as it certainly has its roots in religion.

But the argument against gay marriage absolutely can not be made without bringing up someone's religious beliefs, and at that point the government should not be involved. That's my opinion.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

But the argument against gay marriage absolutely can not be made without bringing up someone's religious beliefs, and at that point the government should not be involved.

And Bing-o was his name-o...

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

The difference between a Gay sex act and an Insectual sex act are different by our societies standards, at least at this moment. Of course Gays weren't always allowed to be open. But we used to have Slaves too. Women didn't used to be able to vote. Things are different now, and I would say a majority of the country is OKAY with gays being together. Besides the stereotypical south, I don't think Gays get a lot of trouble if they are just "being". The trouble lies in the marriage.

In the future, I don't think incest will ever fly. Not even with .1% of the nation. That's the difference.

The term "society's standards" is another way of saying society's morality. And what you're saying is, you don't have a problem with incestuous marriages being outlawed because society says that they are unacceptable, but you do have a problem with gay marriages being outlawed even though society says that they are unacceptable.

That seems like a logical inconsistency to me.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by jthig32

But in the other limits on marriage the government has a non-faith based reason. Polygamy may be the shakiest of these as it certainly has its roots in religion.

But the argument against gay marriage absolutely can not be made without bringing up someone's religious beliefs, and at that point the government should not be involved. That's my opinion.

I don't agree with this statement at all. While we could argue all day long (and I have no desire to do so), very legitimate arguments can be (and have been) advanced against gay marriage that have nothing to do with religion at all.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I don't agree with this statement at all. While we could argue all day long (and I have no desire to do so), very legitimate arguments can be (and have been) advanced against gay marriage that have nothing to do with religion at all.

I woudl love to see them. It's an intriguing issue to me.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by jthig32

But in the other limits on marriage the government has a non-faith based reason. Polygamy may be the shakiest of these as it certainly has its roots in religion.

But the argument against gay marriage absolutely can not be made without bringing up someone's religious beliefs, and at that point the government should not be involved. That's my opinion.

I understand what you are saying. It doesn't work on the fringes though.

Either government needs to be totally out of it -- which could be fine -- but if that is the case then government needs to get totally out of it. No more alimony, joint taxes, etc. No laws against polygamy, incest, etc. Businesses/Insurances wouldn't have to cover family, etc. Divorce means no legal separation of assets. End it all.

Or government stays in it -- in which case people get to vote on what they think is "fair". Some will vote for Gods ways (their religion) and some will vote for Man's ways (their own) version of what is fair. Laws determine who gets what and who can do what.

Either in or out. Please don't straddle the fence though .

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I don't agree with this statement at all. While we could argue all day long (and I have no desire to do so), very legitimate arguments can be (and have been) advanced against gay marriage that have nothing to do with religion at all.

Interesting opinion, considering how many times the word "God " can be found in this thread alone...

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The term "society's standards" is another way of saying society's morality. And what you're saying is, you don't have a problem with incestuous marriages being outlawed because society says that they are unacceptable, but you do have a problem with gay marriages being outlawed even though society says that they are unacceptable.

That seems like a logical inconsistency to me.

Well yes, if you change the idea of my post it most likely won't make sense. My emphesis was on the relationship ITSELF being allowed at all. I don't have a problem with incestual marriages being outlawed because those types of relationships are not even allowed in the first place. I do have a problem with gay marriages being outlawed because gay couples ARE allowed.

As it is right now:

You CAN'T be involved in incest and an incest couple CAN'T get married. -- makes sense

You CAN be involved in a gay relationship but you CAN'T get married. -- doesn't make sense

There's a huge difference there.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Interesting opinion, considering how many times the word "God " can be found in this thread alone...

I believe that is me and not KG that has used it "often".

KG tends to make legal logical arguments, although he shows himself to be Christian quite often.

[fluid.forty.one]

For those of you using the God defense, why is it okay for Gay people to even be together then. God doesn't think they should marry.. so a lot of Christians vote against it on this belief.. but God doesn't want them to be together at all and we don't do a damn thing about it.

If we are good Christians we would stop this madness.