Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/15/2012 7:20:29 AM EDT
Ok, option to long to fit in box - so flame me


Protecting rights
by allowing Gay marriage





Denying rights by defining moral and immoral
behavior in opposition to religion






 
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 7:21:13 AM EDT
They're all gay
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 7:23:01 AM EDT
I can't just go off marrying anyone I want.  I need daddy gov't to tell me better.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 7:35:11 AM EDT
Inventing rights to buy votes.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 7:40:07 AM EDT
Quoted:
Inventing rights to buy votes.


Link Posted: 2/15/2012 7:40:53 AM EDT
Gay marriage is the result of a society and government being tossed to and fro after their historical,mutually agreed upon, moral anchor was willfully cut loose.














Link Posted: 2/15/2012 7:42:02 AM EDT
As long as the government supports marriage by giving married couples special privileges in contract law, taxation, parenting, medical & end of life issues, then discrimination of who can be married to whom is discrimination & forbids equal protection of the law.  If a state were to eliminate all references to marriage from their law code, and marriages were concluded in that state by private contract, there would be no need to legalize gay marriage.

If you want to bring the particular moral code from your religion into the laws of the government, move to Iran - you'll be quite comfortable there.

Farmers Fight!

backbencher
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 7:43:49 AM EDT




He who frames the question wins the debate.
 
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 7:45:26 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Inventing rights to buy votes.




Link Posted: 2/15/2012 7:47:32 AM EDT
You have no right to force religions to accept your lifestyle choices.

There is no such thing as "Gay Marriage". Marriage is a religious act and only sanctioned between a man and woman. The state has nothing to do with it.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 7:48:33 AM EDT







Quoted:




I can't just go off marrying anyone I want.  I need daddy gov't to tell me better.




Wrong.
You CAN go marry anyone you want. No one will stop you (maybe the other groom's father but that's not what I mean).
You and any guy you pick can go get married today. Invite your friends and family, get a minister willing to preside over it and read some poetry, exchange vows, promises and rings and kiss each other will everyone wipes tears away from their eyes. You are now "married".
Oh, but you want gov't (i.e. "the people") to sanction your particular relationship? Well then you need permission of "the people" to get their stamp of approval on what YOU are calling marriage.
See how that works?
If "the people" don't recognize your relationship in what THEY define as "marriage", well then you're not "married" in the eyes of "the people".
Why can't gays leave us "the people" out of their private relationship????
 
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 7:54:07 AM EDT
Quoted:

Quoted:
I can't just go off marrying anyone I want.  I need daddy gov't to tell me better.

Wrong.

You CAN go marry anyone you want. No one will stop you (maybe the other groom's father but that's not what I mean).

You and any guy you pick can go get married today. Invite your friends and family, get a minister willing to preside over it and read some poetry, exchange vows, promises and rings and kiss each other will everyone wipes tears away from their eyes. You are now "married".

Oh, but you want gov't (i.e. "the people") to sanction your particular relationship? Well then you need permission of "the people" to get their stamp of approval on your marriage.

See how that works?

If "the people" don't recognize your relationship in what THEY define as "marriage", well then you're not "married" in the eyes of "the people".



Why can't gays leave us "the people" out of their private relationship????



 


We have a winner.

Link Posted: 2/15/2012 7:54:23 AM EDT


Government just needs to stay out of this and everything else.

Link Posted: 2/15/2012 7:57:38 AM EDT




Quoted:

As long as the government supports marriage by giving married couples special privileges in contract law, taxation, parenting, medical & end of life issues, then discrimination of who can be married to whom is discrimination & forbids equal protection of the law. If a state were to eliminate all references to marriage from their law code, and marriages were concluded in that state by private contract, there would be no need to legalize gay marriage.



If you want to bring the particular moral code from your religion into the laws of the government, move to Iran - you'll be quite comfortable there.



Farmers Fight!



backbencher




Well stated. The GD morality cops will be along shortly to yell at you, assuming they even understood what you wrote.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 7:59:55 AM EDT




Quoted:



Quoted:





Quoted:

I can't just go off marrying anyone I want. I need daddy gov't to tell me better.


Wrong.



You CAN go marry anyone you want. No one will stop you (maybe the other groom's father but that's not what I mean).



You and any guy you pick can go get married today. Invite your friends and family, get a minister willing to preside over it and read some poetry, exchange vows, promises and rings and kiss each other will everyone wipes tears away from their eyes. You are now "married".



Oh, but you want gov't (i.e. "the people") to sanction your particular relationship? Well then you need permission of "the people" to get their stamp of approval on your marriage.



See how that works?



If "the people" don't recognize your relationship in what THEY define as "marriage", well then you're not "married" in the eyes of "the people".
Why can't gays leave us "the people" out of their private relationship????




We have a winner.







Not really.



The issue centres around economics, but the American Taliban members need to assure themselves they are fighting some great moral crusade.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:04:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:05:48 AM EDT
Non-issue IMHO... If someone wants to screw their life up by getting married, all power to them. I personally don't care if someone marries/fucks someone of the opposite sex, same sex, farm animal, car, or farm implement, if doesn't effect my life.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:06:36 AM EDT
Set precedent for government to dictate laws church must follow.

Church compromises values = statest win + leverage anytime church takes exception to any law based on moral grounds

Church portrayed in bad light = statest win

Non compliant church forced to pay fines = statest win
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:08:26 AM EDT
Quoted:
As long as the government supports marriage by giving married couples special privileges in contract law, taxation, parenting, medical & end of life issues, then discrimination of who can be married to whom is discrimination & forbids equal protection of the law.  If a state were to eliminate all references to marriage from their law code, and marriages were concluded in that state by private contract, there would be no need to legalize gay marriage.

If you want to bring the particular moral code from your religion into the laws of the government, move to Iran - you'll be quite comfortable there.

Farmers Fight!

backbencher


This X 1000
Very well said
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:10:17 AM EDT




Quoted:



Quoted:





Quoted:

I can't just go off marrying anyone I want. I need daddy gov't to tell me better.


Wrong.



You CAN go marry anyone you want. No one will stop you (maybe the other groom's father but that's not what I mean).



You and any guy you pick can go get married today. Invite your friends and family, get a minister willing to preside over it and read some poetry, exchange vows, promises and rings and kiss each other will everyone wipes tears away from their eyes. You are now "married".



Oh, but you want gov't (i.e. "the people") to sanction your particular relationship? Well then you need permission of "the people" to get their stamp of approval on your marriage.



See how that works?



If "the people" don't recognize your relationship in what THEY define as "marriage", well then you're not "married" in the eyes of "the people".
Why can't gays leave us "the people" out of their private relationship????




We have a winner.







Very much so.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:19:20 AM EDT
I would spend less time worrying about other peoples marriage and relationship, and spend more time making my own better, but what the fuck do I know.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:19:56 AM EDT
Quoted:
Inventing rights to buy votes.


This, and forcing more government  and private employees to be covered by health insurance.

It's about benefits.  All this could be solved by eliminating the corporate deductibility of health care.

Which shouldn't be an issue anyway since the corporate tax rate should be zero.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:22:29 AM EDT
Quoted:


Government just needs to stay out of this and everything else.



+1
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:24:00 AM EDT
Ummm OP were is your box:

States deciding how they will handle there citizens marital options?
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:28:15 AM EDT
Quoted:

Quoted:
I can't just go off marrying anyone I want.  I need daddy gov't to tell me better.

Wrong.

You CAN go marry anyone you want. No one will stop you (maybe the other groom's father but that's not what I mean).

You and any guy you pick can go get married today. Invite your friends and family, get a minister willing to preside over it and read some poetry, exchange vows, promises and rings and kiss each other will everyone wipes tears away from their eyes. You are now "married".

Oh, but you want gov't (i.e. "the people") to sanction your particular relationship? Well then you need permission of "the people" to get their stamp of approval on what YOU are calling marriage.

See how that works?

If "the people" don't recognize your relationship in what THEY define as "marriage", well then you're not "married" in the eyes of "the people".



Why can't gays leave us "the people" out of their private relationship????



 


You've just made the case that this isn't about forcing views on a particular religion, and that - in fact - marriage is a secular legal institution that is part of society at large, going beyond religious communities.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:35:08 AM EDT
Quoted:
Oh, but you want gov't (i.e. "the people") to sanction your particular relationship? Well then you need permission of "the people" to get their stamp of approval on what YOU are calling marriage.


Fags just want the same benefits and recognition that breaders and DINKS are afforded.  If you have objections to the term religious "marriage" being used to describe this legal arrangement, the the term marriage should be removed from laws.

Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:36:36 AM EDT
Quoted:
Government just needs to stay out of this and everything else.


This is really what it gets down to.  I don't support laws "permitting gay marriage" as much as I oppose laws that limit what consenting adults can do.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:37:08 AM EDT
All laws are moral codes.

Homosexuality is right up there with incest, it's deviancy. The liberals and Libertarians are all just libtards.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:37:41 AM EDT
Quoted:
As long as the government supports marriage by giving married couples special privileges in contract law, taxation, parenting, medical & end of life issues, then discrimination of who can be married to whom is discrimination & forbids equal protection of the law.


Equal protection of the law does not require the government to treat all persons equally, as most people seem to believe. It requres that the government treat all similarly situated persons equally.

That's the point of argument. Are a man who wishes to marry a women and a man who wishes to marry another man similarly situated?
If you answer that question "yes" you have to conclude that the two men who wish to marry have had their rights violated if they are not allowed to marry.
If you answer that question "no" there is no deprivation of rights.

As with every issue, different people answer the threshold question differently.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:38:14 AM EDT
The government CANNOT define morality.  That is beyond its scope.  It can only define legalities.

Lots of stuff I personally consider immoral, should never-the-less be legal.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:38:39 AM EDT
Quoted:
Gay marriage is the result of a society and government being tossed to and fro after their historical,mutually agreed upon, moral anchor was willfully cut loose.

That's what we get from freeing the negros and letting women vote
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:39:22 AM EDT
Government can be state or federal.  People already could marry (or not) in each others eyes and the eyes of their religion.





I see this as the Government's (never by popular vote) either granting rights or taking them away.  It is either a "you can" to the homosexuals, or a "you will" to the rest of the people.
 
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:46:05 AM EDT




Quoted:

You have no right to force religions to accept your lifestyle choices.



There is no such thing as "Gay Marriage". Marriage is a religious act and only sanctioned between a man and woman. The state has nothing to do with it.




If it is a religious act, why do you have to get the marriage paper  from a court house and send to the state?
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 8:49:15 AM EDT
Quoted:
They're all gay


Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:07:12 AM EDT
Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:

Quoted:
I can't just go off marrying anyone I want. I need daddy gov't to tell me better.

Wrong.

You CAN go marry anyone you want. No one will stop you (maybe the other groom's father but that's not what I mean).

You and any guy you pick can go get married today. Invite your friends and family, get a minister willing to preside over it and read some poetry, exchange vows, promises and rings and kiss each other will everyone wipes tears away from their eyes. You are now "married".

Oh, but you want gov't (i.e. "the people") to sanction your particular relationship? Well then you need permission of "the people" to get their stamp of approval on your marriage.

See how that works?

If "the people" don't recognize your relationship in what THEY define as "marriage", well then you're not "married" in the eyes of "the people".



Why can't gays leave us "the people" out of their private relationship????





We have a winner.



Not really.

The issue centres around economics, but the American Taliban members need to assure themselves they are fighting some great moral crusade.


Who are the American Taliban? CARE hasn't voiced an opinion as far as I know.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:08:49 AM EDT
Quoted:

Quoted:
I can't just go off marrying anyone I want.  I need daddy gov't to tell me better.

Wrong.

You CAN go marry anyone you want. No one will stop you (maybe the other groom's father but that's not what I mean).

You and any guy you pick can go get married today. Invite your friends and family, get a minister willing to preside over it and read some poetry, exchange vows, promises and rings and kiss each other will everyone wipes tears away from their eyes. You are now "married".

Oh, but you want gov't (i.e. "the people") to sanction your particular relationship? Well then you need permission of "the people" to get their stamp of approval on what YOU are calling marriage.

See how that works?

If "the people" don't recognize your relationship in what THEY define as "marriage", well then you're not "married" in the eyes of "the people".



Why can't gays leave us "the people" out of their private relationship????



 


I like this
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:09:57 AM EDT
Quoted:

Quoted:
I can't just go off marrying anyone I want.  I need daddy gov't to tell me better.

Wrong.

You CAN go marry anyone you want. No one will stop you (maybe the other groom's father but that's not what I mean).

You and any guy you pick can go get married today. Invite your friends and family, get a minister willing to preside over it and read some poetry, exchange vows, promises and rings and kiss each other will everyone wipes tears away from their eyes. You are now "married".

Oh, but you want gov't (i.e. "the people") to sanction your particular relationship? Well then you need permission of "the people" to get their stamp of approval on what YOU are calling marriage.

See how that works?

If "the people" don't recognize your relationship in what THEY define as "marriage", well then you're not "married" in the eyes of "the people".



Why can't gays leave us "the people" out of their private relationship????



 


I have no problem with Civil Unions
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:13:53 AM EDT
Quoted:
I have no problem with Civil Unions

Then what is your problem with marriage?

Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:16:16 AM EDT
Quoted:
You have no right to force religions to accept your lifestyle choices.

There is no such thing as "Gay Marriage". Marriage is a religious act and only sanctioned between a man and woman. The state has nothing to do with it.


Ever seen anything like this?



They make you pay and fill out paperwork, and then they give you that.  Having that grants one privileges unavailable without it.

So actually, it would seem that the state has quite a lot to do with it.

ETA- also, one can get that piece of paper without any intercession or involvement of any religious authorities.  A JOP can do it.

So it would seem that marriage is an institution in which religious involvement is optional, but state involvement is mandatory.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:17:58 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have no problem with Civil Unions

Then what is your problem with marriage?



Imposing your political views on my religious views.
Civil Union is a great compromise. It gives them all the benefits of Marriage but doesn't force religions to go against their faiths..
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:18:44 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have no right to force religions to accept your lifestyle choices.

There is no such thing as "Gay Marriage". Marriage is a religious act and only sanctioned between a man and woman. The state has nothing to do with it.


Ever seen anything like this?

http://macquirelatory.com/Marriage%20License/marriage%20license%203.jpg

They make you pay and fill out paperwork, and then they give you that.  Having that grants one privileges unavailable without it.

So actually, it would seem that the state has quite a lot to do with it.


Civil Unions would negate that
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:21:39 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have no right to force religions to accept your lifestyle choices.

There is no such thing as "Gay Marriage". Marriage is a religious act and only sanctioned between a man and woman. The state has nothing to do with it.


Ever seen anything like this?

http://macquirelatory.com/Marriage%20License/marriage%20license%203.jpg

They make you pay and fill out paperwork, and then they give you that.  Having that grants one privileges unavailable without it.

So actually, it would seem that the state has quite a lot to do with it.


Civil Unions would negate that


They would, if the legwork was done to ensure that CU couples had the same protection under the law as married couples.

That's my only issue with the whole thing, equal protection.  The quibbling over definitions and minutiae is bullshit.  Equal protection under the law is a constitutional matter.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:23:18 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, but you want gov't (i.e. "the people") to sanction your particular relationship? Well then you need permission of "the people" to get their stamp of approval on what YOU are calling marriage.


Fags just want the same benefits and recognition that breaders and DINKS are afforded.  If you have objections to the term religious "marriage" being used to describe this legal arrangement, the the term marriage should be removed from laws.



I'm good with that
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:23:24 AM EDT
Quoted:
Inventing rights to buy votes.


Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:24:16 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have no problem with Civil Unions

Then what is your problem with marriage?



Imposing your political views on my religious views.
Civil Union is a great compromise. It gives them all the benefits of Marriage but doesn't force religions to go against their faiths..


Except no religious group would be forced to perform marriages between gays.  The whole thing is a red herring.

Do Christian groups have issue with the idea that couples are married in courthouses now, or in Jewish ceremonies?

I personally would like to see marriage licenses become "civil union" licenses, thus eliminating that argument.  I think it would also eliminate the semantics argument, and allow everyone to really see the issues.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:24:49 AM EDT
State government reflects the wishes and beliefs of the state's people. Except for where the state constitution forbids legislation and except for where power is ceded to the federal government through the US Constitution.

States have always had the authority to protect the morality of the people of the state. And morality is defined by the prevailing beliefs of the majority.

I know a lot of people don't like it, but states absolutely have the authority to be involved in marriage. Because the people want them to be involved, and by wide margins.

I think I'm going to start a thread discussing how everyone who believes in "gravity" is a sheep.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:27:21 AM EDT



Quoted:



Quoted:




Quoted:

I can't just go off marrying anyone I want.  I need daddy gov't to tell me better.


Wrong.



You CAN go marry anyone you want. No one will stop you (maybe the other groom's father but that's not what I mean).



You and any guy you pick can go get married today. Invite your friends and family, get a minister willing to preside over it and read some poetry, exchange vows, promises and rings and kiss each other will everyone wipes tears away from their eyes. You are now "married".



Oh, but you want gov't (i.e. "the people") to sanction your particular relationship? Well then you need permission of "the people" to get their stamp of approval on what YOU are calling marriage.



See how that works?



If "the people" don't recognize your relationship in what THEY define as "marriage", well then you're not "married" in the eyes of "the people".
Why can't gays leave us "the people" out of their private relationship????
 




You've just made the case that this isn't about forcing views on a particular religion, and that - in fact - marriage is a secular legal institution that is part of society at large, going beyond religious communities.


Some religions sanction marriage between gays, some don't. So it's not a "religious" issue.



So yes, marriage is more than just a religious issue. It's a morals/cultural/values issue of the society.
 
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:27:37 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have no problem with Civil Unions

Then what is your problem with marriage?
Imposing your political views on my religious views.
Civil Union is a great compromise. It gives them all the benefits of Marriage but doesn't force religions to go against their faiths..

What about an heterosexual atheist couple that gets married by the county clerk?  Or couples that get married without the intent to procreate?  They obviously do not meet your definition of "marriage", but I do not see the uproar over those situations.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:28:54 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, but you want gov't (i.e. "the people") to sanction your particular relationship? Well then you need permission of "the people" to get their stamp of approval on what YOU are calling marriage.


Fags just want the same benefits and recognition that breaders and DINKS are afforded.  If you have objections to the term religious "marriage" being used to describe this legal arrangement, the the term marriage should be removed from laws.



I'm good with that


And I think you and I have had this exact same conversation before.

I really have to stop reading these threads...
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:29:31 AM EDT
Quoted:
Inventing rights to buy votes.


Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:30:30 AM EDT
Quoted:
State government reflects the wishes and beliefs of the state's people. Except for where the state constitution forbids legislation and except for where power is ceded to the federal government through the US Constitution.

States have always had the authority to protect the morality of the people of the state. And morality is defined by the prevailing beliefs of the majority.

I know a lot of people don't like it, but states absolutely have the authority to be involved in marriage. Because the people want them to be involved, and by wide margins.

I think I'm going to start a thread discussing how everyone who believes in "gravity" is a sheep.


Indeed.

It is definitely not a federal issue - except where "full faith and credit" is at play.

Of course, if a state who has decided to only allow one type of marriage must recognize people married in another... what does that mean about carry permits?

So much drama.  So much lofty language and legal wrangling to disguise what usually amounts to kneejerk opinions on one side or another.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top