| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
so whats your point? The statistical probabilities. As for the first amendment - why aren't Christians fighting against benefits being received by Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics etc? Are those not against Christian beliefs? But wait theres more - what if those groups start petitioning against Christians receiving benefits, that just blew your mind, huh? What benefits exactly are you talking about. If there are benefits available for choosing to follow any specific religion, I'm not aware of it, but I would agree that would be an issue. But please be specific so that it can be discussed. You cant look at this from a Christian point of view, the Constitution isn't about that. I'm not taking this from a Christian point of view. There are quite a number of religions that would have their beliefs violated by forcing them to support the choice of a gay lifestyle. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
The statistical probabilities. What benefits exactly are you talking about. If there are benefits available for choosing to follow any specific religion, I'm not aware of it, but I would agree that would be an issue. But please be specific so that it can be discussed. I'm not taking this from a Christian point of view. There are quite a number of religions that would have their beliefs violated by forcing them to support the choice of a gay lifestyle." the statistical probabilities that gays go to swinging parties more than straights? Please tell me where you found this data What benefits are YOU talking about? You mentioned benefits in your post so because something goes against a religious view it should be banned? No one is being forced to support it. Its not like youre being forced to buy them wedding gifts or something. Same as if a Muslim prays to Allah - do you feel forced to support that? If you do you should be crying out that its against the constitution. there is a difference in supporting a lifestyle and accepting the rights of those who live it to have freedoms | ||
| Sifo |
the statistical probabilities that gays go to swinging parties more than straights? Please tell me where you found this data It is empirically supported by the stats that Blake keeps discussion about the extremely high rate of HIV infection in the gay population. What benefits are YOU talking about? You mentioned benefits in your post Well the example that I keep providing (I have no idea how many times now) is Social Security survivor benefits. Extending marriage under the law to gays, will make them eligible for these SS survivor benefits, which are paid for by all tax payers, some of whom have a religious objection to gay marriage. Clear enough? so because something goes against a religious view it should be banned? No. As I clearly stated, there is a way do get this done without a Constitutional conflict. No one is being forced to support it. Its not like youre being forced to buy them wedding gifts or something. Same as if a Muslim prays to Allah - do you feel forced to support that? If you do you should be crying out that its against the constitution. there is a difference in supporting a lifestyle and accepting the rights of those who live it to have freedoms But as I provided an example (one of many BTW), you are asking me to support it. When my tax dollars to to someone simply because of a choice they make, I am being forced to support that choice. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
"It is empirically supported by the stats that Blake keeps discussion about the extremely high rate of HIV infection in the gay population. " STD rates do not mean that all gays, even those in 'committed relationships' take vacations where they screw other people. And do you base your research on what Blake says or do you have other sources to back up your claim? | ||
| Sifo |
"It is empirically supported by the stats that Blake keeps discussion about the extremely high rate of HIV infection in the gay population. " STD rates do not mean that all gays, even those in 'committed relationships' take vacations where they screw other people. And do you base your research on what Blake says or do you have other sources to back up your claim? It isn't a point that I've made. I'm simply discussing it. It has only to do with why the government has chosen to support a particular lifestyle. The point that I do keep making is the Constitutional issue. This is a point that consistently gets ignored. space for the rebuttal of the Constitutional point had it not been ignored I see it's been ignored again. | ||
| Sifo |
So while I don't think it's the strongest argument in the gay marriage debate, as long as you asked, yes there is more to back up Blake's claim of promiscuity among the gay community. I've already covered the guy I used to work with. I had many lunches with him over a 5 year period. I honestly have no idea whatsoever why he felt the desire to open up this part of his life to me, but he did. It was clear from talking to him that his views on a relationship were VERY different from mine. Granted he is only one data point though. Well three if you include his long time partner, and the new partner they added to the house when they moved to Key West. Just a typical relationship. Of course we have already discussed the fact that gays are restricted from blood donations. I'm guessing they came up with that on a few more than three data points. In fact, I would take that as a pretty good case for what Blake is stating to be substantially correct. Then we can look at places that I'm aware of that cater to this minority population. I know of bed and breakfast places that cater to them, bars, entire neighborhoods, and even towns and large cities that have a reputation for catering to this lifestyle. Of course you've pointed out that there are straight folks that go for equally perverse choices too. Here's the odd thing about that though. Despite heterosexuals being, by far, the majority, I'm totally unaware of any places that try to cater to the perverse of this group. Yet for some reason, when it comes to the small majority of gays, I can point to specific know places that do cater to these perverse choices. I just find that disparity kind of odd. As I said though, to me this isn't the main issue by a long shot. How about the Constitutional issues? | ||
| Garryb |
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." | ||
| Aesquire |
Still seems that promoting a stable, exclusive, ( monogamous or polygamous ) relationship is in the best interest of society. If Government should do such a thing is a separate question. It does try and promote Stability. Often, the best of intentions result in bad things, a recent example being the push to have people own houses instead of renting them. The idea seemed logical. Neighborhoods where people own are nicer, cleaner, and have less crime than 'hood where they mostly rent. In retrospect, it is obvious that it was the PEOPLE who worked hard and focused on owning and keeping a property for a family that made the difference, not simply owning a home. The program that resulted in the housing finance crash deliberately ignored the people, and focused on the loans. So good intentions can lead to utter crap. And often do. Especially if it's a government thing. Someone always brings up dogs or beastiality. Always a freak show, and never going to be a marriage since critters cannot give informed consent. It also makes the person that mentions it in this argument look like a fool. What form of human partnership would by law be unacceptable if homosexual partnerships are deemed equivalent to marriage. Good question, and I think a fair one. Probably incestuous clans. Polygamy and Group Marriage are going to be acceptable. Polygamy, IS a natural consequence of gay marriage being approved. The one man/one woman marriage is not the norm everywhere, or everywhen. The last few thousand years have had the influence of the Christian churches pushing the idea of 1+1, but in large parts of the planet's history, polygamy was common. That makes sense in an age where a large percentage of women die in child birth, and infant mortality is high. Having more than one wife really helps to keep the family and it's property intact. There's also an economic factor, wealthier folk could more easily support larger families, and had more to protect. The 1+1 partnership is probably the most common in recorded history, but that's just the last 14k years or less. The million before that may have been dominated by "pride" families ( see Lions, mating habits of ) "packs" ( see Wolves, society of ) or communal tribal forms. We don't know, but ALL of those forms of family exist today, in the minority. Islam, the fastest growing faith, is Polygamous. I fully expect polygamy for Muslims to be legal in the US inside of 3 years. One question before the Supreme Court, and worth thinking about is that both the CA Prop, and the DOMA are attempts to "democratically" restrict peoples actions. Both are deliberate attempts to legislate morality and impose it on a minority. The CA Prop, more so since it is more a "democratic function" ( not the Party, the form of rule ) It's ironic that the same folk in large part in CA that voted for Obama, voted against gay marriage. Consider that political fissure. I'm against "democratic" rule, as it turns to tyranny very fast, and as nasty as any other form of Mob rule. ( See Ann Coulter's recent book "Demonic, How The Liberal Mob Is Endangering America" ) What if? The majority of folk in your town voted to make it illegal to drink alcohol? Voted to make it illegal to own a gun? Voted to make it illegal to raise a child unless you were married? Voted to make it illegal to gaze on a woman's face, unless a relative? Voted that in case of rape, a woman needed 6 male witnesses? Voted that a woman be not allowed to drive? Voted that a man not be allowed to shave? Or have long hair? Vote that disrespectful speech about the Prophet be illegal? Most of the above have been laws. Some still are. The bad results are endless, and in history, have been. Some have complained about insurance and SS. I wouldn't worry about the Insurance. Between Obamacare and the Illegal Immigrant issue, the only private insurers are going to be the ones that bribe the Prez to act as agents and take a cut. An interesting neo-fascism, not going to be pretty. The hundreds of gay couples are a drop in the ocean compared to the 20+ million Illegals that will be put on YOUR insurance, with you paying for it. The SS issue has some merit. Why do the survivors of a breadwinner ( an almost obsolete concept, alas ) get benefits? What did they do to deserve them? The offspring? Well....... poor orphans suck to take care of. Such a bother. So SS benefits make some sense there, I suppose.  The spouse? When SS was imposed, the Man of the family worked, and the Women stayed home and raised the kids and kept the house. ( a very underpaid job. With LONGER hours, btw ) So when the husband dies, the wife gets the aid because she cannot go into the working world and support the family. That has changed a bit, but still has some reality to it. For example, in the Obama Administration Staff, the folk that work FOR the President, the women get paid 16% less. ( who's war on women? ) If the family is Josie and Carol, or Joe and Carol, and Carol stays home and housekeeps ( the traditional "wife" role ) then Carol is going to be less prepared and able to support the remnants of the family. J dies, Carol gets some aid. I don't see the issue. Mostly though this is a distraction. Blake, I admire the stand and fight all aspects of the attack on our culture. But this one is a loser. While you get angsty over Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice, in whatever combination, the left is using that to paint you as an evil redneck. They will call you a sexually repressed....... etc. And you're in Texas, where ( last I heard ) a penis shaped toy is illegal. They are certainly going to use that to paint you ( and the whole State... wait until succession comes up again ) as "out of touch" and undeserving of a voice in "today's enlightened society". Let me rephrase that. IT'S A TRAP! This issue is supposed to make YOU look bad and hurt your ability to resist the other changes that the leftists are cramming down our throats. | ||
| Blake |
>>> And you're in Texas, where ( last I heard ) a penis shaped toy is illegal. Only for high capacity magazines. | ||
| Blake |
>>> there is a difference in supporting a lifestyle and accepting the rights of those who live it to have freedoms I agree. What rights are being denied? The right to others hard earned income? There is no such right. I agree with Sifo in that I'd absolutely rather cease the special support for marriage and family rather than be forced by govt to support homosexual behavior which directly violates my and many others dearly held religious beliefs. That you don't care one whit about my relatively common and millennia old understanding of our creator's will is beyond disappointing. How arrogant. How callous. How selfish and intolerant. How bigoted! All hail the sodomizers, but have no compassion or understanding for the religious? Do unto others as you would have others do unto you? If I were behaving in a way that was an abomination to our creator, I'd yearn to have that behavior exposed as such. The last thing I'd want would be to have that behavior forcibly promoted and subsidized by all productive people. None of your points address any of the questions I've asked. They only reframe or dismiss them. This discussion has turned very disappointing. One side refuses to engage. (Message edited by blake on April 02, 2013) | ||
| Blake |
During the oral arguments in the Prop 8 case, Justice Kennedy said at one point, “We have 5 years of information [about same-sex marriage] to weigh against 2,000 years of history, or more [about marriage] … the problem with this case is that [the advocates of same-sex marriage are] really asking … for us to go into unchartered waters …” Justice Alito similarly pointed out, “Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new…[s]o there isn’t a lot of data about its effects…but [the advocates of same-sex marriage] want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of [same-sex marriage] which is newer than cell phones or the Internet?” http://blog.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/2013/04/0 2/so…-how-did-it-go-summarizing-the-marriage-trials-at -the-supreme-court/#disqus_thread | ||
| Blake |
>>> Still seems that promoting a stable, exclusive, ( monogamous or polygamous ) relationship is in the best interest of society. Why do you say that? Seriously. Given only the parameters you offer, what is society in general to gain? I don't see much, certainly nothing that ought to compel govt to take from some and give to others or to show special consideration for some purely on account of the parameters listed. I think a case better than "it seems..." Ought to be made if we are to be convinced to radically redefine the core basis for the very foundation of society. During the oral arguments in the Prop 8 case, Justice Kennedy said at one point, “We have 5 years of information [about same-sex marriage] to weigh against 2,000 years of history, or more [about marriage] … the problem with this case is that [the advocates of same-sex marriage are] really asking … for us to go into unchartered waters …” | ||
| Blake |
>>> One question before the Supreme Court, and worth thinking about is that both the CA Prop, and the DOMA are attempts to "democratically" restrict peoples actions. Both are deliberate attempts to legislate morality and impose it on a minority. Please explain what makes you say that. What actions of anyone are being restricted??? What morality is being imposed upon anyone??? I just don't see that refusing to legally redefine marriage to include forms of non-gender specific union is restricting anyone or imposing any kind of morality. It's simply upholding the definition of a word and the duty of the govt to promote the general welfare. I'd really like to see someone try to make the argument that promoting traditional marriage and family is not in the best interests of society in general. What the homosexuals are asking is for the govt to also promote the desires of the few at the expense of all. And based on what? No redeeming value whatsoever to society at large. (Message edited by blake on April 02, 2013) | ||
| Blake |
What if? The majority of folk in your town voted to make it illegal to drink alcohol? Voted to make it illegal to own a gun? Voted to make it illegal to raise a child unless you were married? Voted to make it illegal to gaze on a woman's face, unless a relative? Voted that in case of rape, a woman needed 6 male witnesses? Voted that a woman be not allowed to drive? Voted that a man not be allowed to shave? Or have long hair? Vote that disrespectful speech about the Prophet be illegal? } In some cases, those would be rightly deemed unconstitutional. What if? The majority of folk in your town voted to force you to support that which you view as morally wrong and in blatant violation of your dearly held mainstream religious beliefs and those of many, many others? Two can play the game. >>> The bad results are endless, and in history, have been. So according to that logic, no law must offend anyone? Sorry, I think that is not the idea behind our constitutional rule of law in America. Your case is not convincing at all I think. >>> Some have complained about insurance and SS. I wouldn't worry about the Insurance. Between Obamacare and the Illegal Immigrant issue, the only private insurers are going to be the ones that bribe the Prez to act as agents and take a cut. An interesting neo-fascism, not going to be pretty. The hundreds of gay couples are a drop in the ocean compared to the 20+ million Illegals that will be put on YOUR insurance, with you paying for it. You're missing the point. What do you call being forced to hand over your hard earned wages to support that which you view as morally repugnant and against G_d? I call that tyranny and a blatant violation of my unalienable rights. Why not avoid that, let people live as they like while at the same time continuing to recognize that marriage of husband and wife is fully deserving and warrants our nation's and our societies utmost respect and support? Why not? Seriously, why not? | ||
| Oyrider |
In CA, gay couples do not have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. In spite of the biblical restrictions, or morality issue, our government should treat all of its citizens equally. As far as I'm concerned, call a gay union whatever you want, just make it equal under the law. I think you are misinformed if you feel this is the desire of a few, most Americans are in favor of equal rights for everyone, and that is the redeeming value. The Bible is against lots of things that are common practice these days. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I am for equal rights as well, as long as it it does not change the one true definition of marriage. Call it what it is... a civil union. | ||
| Geedee |
“Russian author Igor Shafarevich reduced the Communist Manifesto’s 10 planks to three specific targets, which were private property, the Christian religion and the family… “Marx regarded communism as the highest form of atheism because it affirms man through the denial of God… He believed that the family structure was inherently exploitative with capitalists treating wives and children as property… “Marriage and inheritance needed to be eliminated because it perpetuates the family. Free love should be the only form of relationship allowed. The sexual revolution is basically a Marxist attempt to destroy marital fidelity and ensure the destruction of the family. “The care and upbringing of children, including what they eat and drink, were social matters for the government. Michelle Obama seems to have adopted this tenet … http://wwwcinopsbegone.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/the- communist-manifesto-destruction-of.html Same topic going through the NZ Parliament now. All singing from the Global Song Sheet. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Cheer up - we get another global war soon - nobody will care much about what the networks are prattling on about now; no matter the side they are pushing. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/d hs-explains-plans-buy-16b-rounds-ammo-were-buying- bulk-significantly Enough ammo to kill every straight person in America. 9 times. http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/02/democrats-propos e-10000-fine-for-gun-owners-who-dont-have-insuranc e/#ixzz2PJLZGKaW Now, what was the problem YOU guys were worried about? oh, yeah....... ....force you to support that which you view as morally wrong and in blatant violation of your dearly held mainstream religious beliefs and those of many, many others? Well first, I could not give a damn about "mainstream" or popular religious beliefs. In many countries that "mainstream" is Islam, your daughter can be married to her uncle at age 11 and you wife may be beat with a stick no larger than your finger. The number of teen age girls murdered by their brothers and fathers is on the rise HERE. ( you know, for being a slut. She looked upon a boy and smiled. ) It's common practice in Islamic counties to stone to death a daughter when a son steals. It's even more common to gather and stone ( torture ) to death a woman when she has been raped, because she has shamed the family. So my respect for "mainstream" religions is pretty damn tiny. Go ahead, tell me YOUR faith is not like that. Fine. How about the systematic concealment of child rape by Preists? Not confined to the Roman church I assure you. The majority of a minority ( we are a Republic ) has voted to make rules I find morally repugnant, historically evil, and personally threatening. I'll pass on your God, since we differ on that subject, but yes, an affront to the Goddess for certain, removing the ability to resist evil and defend the innocent. THAT offends MY faith. What do you call being forced to hand over your hard earned wages to support that which you view as morally repugnant.... Every fracking day. Every. Not a lot I can do about it. I don't think a violent overthrow of the Government is a good idea. What would result is like the "Arab Spring". Really even more evil Mother*&((^ would move in. Worse than the corrupt jerks in power now. Hard to believe, eh? Why not avoid that, let people live as they like while at the same time continuing to recognize that marriage of husband and wife is fully deserving and warrants our nation's and our societies utmost respect and support? Why not? I don't support ( at this time ) removing all government support of marriage. That was an article's opinion, and I state I can understand, but not quite agree. Prop 8 and DOMA were written to specifically attack a minority group. I'm not comparing slavery to being gay. That's an emotional appeal and faulty. Gay bashing laws and Jim Crow? still not the same, but still both not right. Also, Geedee is correct on the goals and means. This whole rise of gayness may indeed be part of an international plot to destroy western civilization. Hard to prove. But the documentation for it is real. Still think this is far more a ploy to make you look like a redneck idiot and render your opinion void in "the new normal". While you bitch about sodomy, ( one of my favorite things ) the would be tyrants are going to confiscate your guns, take your property, take your money ( in pensions, 401k's and savings accounts.... see Cyprus ) and forbid you to speak ill of the Prophet. Enjoy your righteous anger, but it's pointed at the wrong tree. | ||
| Kenm123t |
AES the past 10 years its the Gays that are doing the bashing. We don't care if they live with Bruce Clyde and AAron Just get out of the propaganda and societal turmoil business and leave us alone The militants that make threats against 11 year old children have no voice. Keep up the persecution of children that want a normal family not the alphabet soup of freaks for a family and gays may find it much safer in the closet. | ||
| Blake |
>>> In CA, gay couples do not have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. Why do you say that? How about citing an actual fact to support your statement? | ||
| Blake |
>>> Now, what was the problem YOU guys were worried about? So your logic is that we should ignore all but one problem at a time? We can multi-task Patrick. Really. | ||
| Blake |
Patrick, It's false logic and bad policy to excuse one class of tyranny by pointing to another. Of course you know that. It's also false and really dishonest to conflate well-understood long held religious doctrine with the bad behavior of men who subvert religion for their own depraved desires. I know that you know that as well. The way you present the case, no religion ought be respected if at any time one of its supposed practitioners behaved outrageously in mistreating others. Well, are you willing apply that same kind of standard to homosexuality, shucks why not apply it to politicians too?. It's not a genuine point to stand on. Either we have the unalienable right to adhere to our religion, or we do not. This nation got its beginning in part from groups of folks who were fleeing just such persecution against their "Puritan" form of Christianity. Of all the nerve, they actually wanted to try to live according to the will of G_d as they understood it per scripture. You enjoy sodomy? That's your freedom and liberty to do so. I support that freedom. Does that mean that sodomy is the same as male-female sexual intercourse, and should be respected and supported as equal to the act that consummates the marriage between husband and wife? Not at all. There is no oppression here, there is only selective support for behavior that benefits society as a whole and that is the basis of the very foundation of civilized society, the family. | ||
| Blake |
Why is that a problem? To be clear, civil union law is fine by me, but now we see the slippery slope of that, though at the time we were told no such slippery slope existed. Liars suck. Next we'll learn that those who hold to religious beliefs opposed to homosexual behavior are mentally unstable and therefore just not be allowed possession of firearms. No one is suggesting the same for practicing homosexuals. Though a good case might be made to do so. | ||
| Hootowl |
Interesting discussion. I still hold that the federal government is not empowered by the constitution to define, regulate, or to otherwise be in any way involved in the institution of marriage. If that means SS and part of the tax code has to be changed in order to facilitate the alignment of federal law with its constitutional limitations, so be it. Marriage is a religious function usurped by the state. The 1st amendment guarantees no federal involvement, and the decision of SCOTUS should be to apply the 1st amendment to the states and prohibit state government from being involved as well. I want the government our constitution promises. I don't give a shake about state support/sanctioning of marriage, gay or otherwise. It's none of their damn business. | ||
| Hootowl |
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." This is the only place in the constitution where the phrase "support the general welfare" exists. Our Founders state the REASON they created the constitution. They were not creating a list of tasks to be performed. For example, "provide for the common defense" is meaningless without the rest of the constitution, which goes on to describe maintaining an Army and a Navy. In order to "provide for the common defense", we maintain an army and a navy. "Promote the general welfare" is not specifically defined elsewhere, however, everything in the constitution is intended to promote the general welfare, or the founders would not have said they were writing the constitution in order to promote the general welfare. You can't use "promote the general welfare" as a catch all for justification for creating federal law. The constitution says specifically what the function of the federal government is, and it also says that if it doesn't say it, it is reserved by the states. Marriage isn't there. Pretty clear cut. | ||
| Sifo |
A long way back in this thread, someone, I'm not sure who made a point about that we should all want to have more freedom. I've been thinking a fair amount about that comment. Certainly, I agree with it in principle, but I don't think we come close as to how to implement that. The Constitution was a set of laws to govern the government, not the people. It is intended to limit the extent that the federal government can restrict it's people. I'm very thankful that we have that. It does a lot to protect our freedoms. State law tends to be a very different thing. State law almost always is based upon limiting your freedoms. Let's go back to how this all started. Prior to the civil war, people were in fact free to marry as they saw fit with no involvement of the government. That was actual freedom. Somewhere between the civil war and 1920 or so the states got into regulating and taxing marriage. Is that more freedom or less? I'd like to hear from anyone who thinks this creates more freedom. Suddenly an institution that was the domain of religion for thousands of years, had become the domain of the state. It seems there's probably a Constitutional issue with taxing marriage in the fist place, but that ship sailed over a century ago, and would likely never be overturned by any court I'll see in my lifetime. It doesn't end with the state limiting your freedoms in this though. The federal government has to get it's hands in there to control it's citizens. They get involved by using tax funds to shape society. You can certainly argue the pro's and con's of this, but rest assured of one fact. By taking cash from the people to redistribute as they see fit, even if it benefits society overall, is limiting your freedom. If you disagree, then please explain to me how I'm free to spend the money taken from me in the form of taxes as I see fit. There's a very important lesson to be learned from this. Almost ANY law created by the government REDUCES your freedom in some way. They may market the new law in grand ways, explaining how it will benefit everyone, and be tax neutral, or what ever catch phrases they choose to use, rest assured that it will in fact, in some way or another, limited peoples freedom. The bottom line here, is that more laws virtually NEVER results in more freedom. Certainly any structured society needs certain laws. No reasonable person could argue otherwise. Do we really need government intruding to the point that they take over the kinds of marriages that one can and can not enter into? Certainly grand arguments can be made to support this. Blake has done a good job with that in this thread. Certainly though history shows us, by the simple fact that for most of recorded history, most governments were NOT involved in marriages. Even if we are better off with government intervention though, clearly we have problems crafting laws that make all happy. Why? Simply because people want to be FREE to choose what is right for themselves. Can that really be achieved with yet more laws? | ||
| Oyrider |
This may help to understand the differences between having marital rights http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civi lmarriage.htm Thanks for looking at it. Among my list of friends are couples that are gay, and its sad that the government treats them as second class citizens. | ||
| Sifo |
Thanks for posting that Oyrider. From your link...
Here's the problem. You are asking people who have very real religious objections (see the 1st amendment) to pay for these 1,049+ benefits. How do you justify trampling the clearly defined Constitutional rights of so many to satisfy the desires of a small segment of the population? I'll state this again, if you can get around the Constitutional issues, I have no problem with gay marriage. It seems that by the count of those in favor of gay marriage, there are over 1,049 likely Constitutional infringements with how they are trying to go about this. (Message edited by SIFO on April 03, 2013) | ||
| Blake |
Jeff, I appreciate your point of view, but I think you may be missing some points that deserve consideration. What happens when one spouse dies without a will? Who takes the deceased spouses material possessions and wealth? When the unfortunate case of divorce occurs, how ought it be adjudicated? The state is involved, since marriage is a contract between husband and wife. Ought the husband be able to ditch his wife leaving her with nothing after she's raised their children and cared for him, their home and family for decades? I just don't see a reasonable way to exclude the state from the institution of marriage. I would all for getting the feds excluded and leaving it to the states, but then we are back to the issue of conflicting state law, which DOMA is intended to address. It prevents the laws of one state from superseding those of another. That and I think you'll have a tough time arguing that as a nation we do not have a very compelling interest in promoting traditional family. If anything deserves subsidizing. It seems that would. OYRider, >>> Among my list of friends are couples that are gay, and its sad that the government treats them as second class citizens. The only way that is true is if homosexual partnership is the same as marriage of husband and wife. As demonstrated previously in this thread and others, it isn't. No matter how badly some may want it to be the same, it just simply is not. |
