Goodbye "Don't ask. Don't tell."

[MrGautama]

If the Left could articulate a cogent and logical argument for radically changing the concept of marriage, their ideas would carry the day. Excuses such as "we are denied it" or "just because" or "we feel entitled" are laughable.

The universally accepted concept of marriage has served humankind pretty well as the fundamental building block of civilization. Ya got to make a POWERFUL argument to change fundamental human structures.

Because no persuasive argument exists for such a radical change, it is very unlikely to occur.

Here it goes, first of all marriage is a fundamental right according to the Supreme Court. Next, as an experiment to see how this really looks when analyzed from a distance I'm going to take some of the remarks made in this thread and slip the word Jew where gay or homosexual were and religious for sexual and what we got?


"Although the tactics employed by the Jewish community are often hideous, their aims and objectives are the true menace to a civilized people. Abnormal behaviors cannot be normalized. Religious deviancy, by definition, is a deviation from the norm. There are many much more urgent social ills to warrant out attention. The small, but screaming phalanx on the left that embraces the radical Jew agenda are an annoyance, but little else. That is, so long as they are held in check by the vast majority who find their peculiar proclivities, well... peculiar."

or...

"To some extent, sure. In some cases, even more so than other types of minorities. But in many cases the "rights" that Jews are claiming aren't even rights at all. Jewish marriage, for example, isn't a right, but they sure call it one. They want it, so to them they should have it, therefore it's a right. And if you keep calling it a right long enough, other people will start to think it's a right, too.
Ironically, rights are inalienable, a.k.a., God-given. Ain't that a hoot? Most Jews don't want to talk much about that, tho."




Besides the misleading data about marriage not being a right in the second example, you can see the effect it has just to change the minority in question and the depth of the discriminatory nature of the statement comes clear. You can use any minority and circumstance and get the same effect.

I personally, as Cheri would put it, don't give a flying fig about gays; I don't have any gay relatives, I know a few but can't consider any of them close friends. What I do care about is all of us and the effect discrimination has on society, today is gays tomorrow maybe you or me.

I think the explanation that Justice Richard N. Palmer of the Connecticut Supreme Court gives summarizes eloquently the importance of the issue:

“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice. To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”


Regardless of all the misleading rhetoric that will inevitably follow this is the base of the left involvement on the issue. This is one of the only subjects where there are no gray areas, you have two choices the rest is just smoke and mirrors:

a) Equal Rights

or

b) Discrimination

 

[iceroadtrucker]

My parents told me about Mr. Common Sense early in my life and told me I would do well to call on him when making decisions. It seems he was always around in my early years but less and less as time passed by. Today I read his obituary. Please join me in a moment of silence in remembrance, for Common Sense had served us all so well for so many generations.


Obituary Common Sense


Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend,Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies
(don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting
strategies (adults, not children are in charge).


His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Aspirin, sun lotion or a sticky plaster to a student, but could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the The Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know my Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm a Victim.


Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

 

[greg334]

Their agenda is to have equal rights period.

Doug,
I look at the marriage thing as a minority issue, meaning that a minority of the group wants the marriage as it is called, but the majority wants the same rights under the laws as do married couples. This means survivors rights, medical rights and other property rights, this impacts more than Gays like everyone and this is where the equal rights ends and shouldn't. No one seems to understand what that is all about, they look at the word marriage, the vocal part of any movement and decide what is not right is not right. Marriage is not the issue for most, at least the ones I know, it has to do with determining one's life and course without interference from the government.

There was a time when black and whites couldn't marry each other.

When was that?

or better yet where was that?

I remember a lot of people who were of different races marrying during the past century or so, even someone called Jack Johnson who married three white women between 1911 and 1925, he was black and it was legal. They tried him on the Mann act and was convicted because they couldn't stop his marriage. But you know the really funny thing about his conviction is that the congress, a democratic congress who is really in tune with minorities failed to pass a resolution asking then Bush for a pardon for Mr. Johnson, it failed in the senate and was sponsored by McCain - funny isn't it if there was an injustice done, I would figure that the party in control would be happy to help right it but again the party is the party of slavery.

 

[aristotle]

Here it goes, first of all marriage is a fundamental right according to the Supreme Court. Next, as an experiment to see how this really looks when analyzed from a distance I'm going to take some of the remarks made in this thread and slip the word Jew where gay or homosexual were and religious for sexual and what we got?


"Although the tactics employed by the Jewish community are often hideous, their aims and objectives are the true menace to a civilized people. Abnormal behaviors cannot be normalized. Religious deviancy, by definition, is a deviation from the norm. There are many much more urgent social ills to warrant out attention. The small, but screaming phalanx on the left that embraces the radical Jew agenda are an annoyance, but little else. That is, so long as they are held in check by the vast majority who find their peculiar proclivities, well... peculiar."

or...

"To some extent, sure. In some cases, even more so than other types of minorities. But in many cases the "rights" that Jews are claiming aren't even rights at all. Jewish marriage, for example, isn't a right, but they sure call it one. They want it, so to them they should have it, therefore it's a right. And if you keep calling it a right long enough, other people will start to think it's a right, too.
Ironically, rights are inalienable, a.k.a., God-given. Ain't that a hoot? Most Jews don't want to talk much about that, tho."




Besides the misleading data about marriage not being a right in the second example, you can see the effect it has just to change the minority in question and the depth of the discriminatory nature of the statement comes clear. You can use any minority and circumstance and get the same effect.

I personally, as Cherri would put it, don't give a flying fig about gays; I don't have any gay relatives, I know a few but can't consider any of them close friends. What I do care about is all of us and the effect discrimination has on society, today is gays tomorrow maybe you or me.

I think the explanation that Justice Richard N. Palmer of the Connecticut Supreme Court gives summarizes eloquently the importance of the issue:

“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice. To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”


Regardless of all the misleading rhetoric that will inevitably follow this is the base of the left involvement on the issue. This is one of the only subjects where there are no gray areas, you have two choices the rest is just smoke and mirrors:

a) Equal Rights

or

b) Discrimination

LRE aka MrG aka Nextout... give it up. Stop using multiple srceen names. Your continued acts of desperation belittle this forum.

 

[LDB]

An issue that will never be resolved. The logical assignment of full rights of survivorship, property rights, medical decisions etc etc, the factors that actually transfer "rights" and "equality" aren't sufficient to satisfy the hard core who don't actually want those things and have other motives in mind as well as those who are not affected and yet so vehemently espouse and argue for nothing short of the extreme all or nothing position.

 

[Iraqvet]

No offense,but what does marriage have to do with gay people in the military??Nothing!!??I dont believe gay people should be aloud to get married,but thats besides the point..That wouldnt effect our fighting forces,or most peoples daily lives...I have never looked down on gay people..I do think it is an illness,but I do not want to kill anyone cause they are gay...But I would not want to be in the military with them if they were open about it...Every guy here knows he couldnt take a shower with a bunch of girls and not notice them..Thats different when you are showering with gay guys who could be checkin you out...Thats exactly whats gonna happen cause they are obviously attracted to the same sex..Its not fair to put that on all these guys and girls to have to be uncomfortable just so gay people can serve..And what the heck happend to the people having the right to VOTE on these kinds of issues?

 

[greg334]

An issue that will never be resolved. The logical assignment of full rights of survivorship, property rights, medical decisions etc etc, the factors that actually transfer "rights" and "equality" aren't sufficient to satisfy the hard core who don't actually want those things and have other motives in mind as well as those who are not affected and yet so vehemently espouse and argue for nothing short of the extreme all or nothing position.

I agree with you Leo but then that brings up the next point which is relevant to the Military issue - defining Gay is now the problem with the "agenda", because there is not and has never been a definition so what determines a person being straight or gay? You see the problem is that some of these groups equate being Gay to being black or Native or what ever but those other groups are very specifically defined, while Gay is not.

 

[MrGautama]

Mr G: I am still quite amused - thank you for that.

Doing my best to keep it that way!!

 

[chefdennis]

If you lived in chicago and told someone that you took out a "Contract", they'd figure you hired a hitman to kill someone. If you said the same thing to a broker on wall st in NYC, they'd figure you signed a new client....It is all about prespective and perception...

We have Church or Christian sancationed marriage and we have government backed marriage...I personally see no need to extent the tradtional Church backed marriage to gays..but i also see no need to stop them from the government backed marriage...i don't want the government in my business, so i see no need to let the govenrment dicate to the gays on this issue, but they won't stop there, i don't really see it about the word marriage as much as i do the need to WIN and beat those that object. No church is forced to recoginize or perform gay marriages (at this time) but while the government is in alot of cases making gay marriage legal , you can bet that sooner or later that when the gay segment feels they have enough backing, there will be lawsuits against churches based on discrimination for not performing or recognizing gay marriage, it will happen ad that is when it will be the business and how it will hurt those that object on religious basis....it will happen, its part of the "gay agenda"

Now as for me personally, i do and will discriminate against more then gay marriage on a daily basis and i will until the day i die. You see i an a sinner, i know its by the grace of God that I am forgiven of my sins as all of those that believe are, but don't pertend that you that are whining about those here and in our country discrinimating against the gays on this issue are any better then the rest of us....you are only kidding yourselfs when you throw that arguement out there.

So, tht article i have attached here is a pretty good commentary on this issue, read it, all of you...maybe each will walk away with a bit more tolerance on this issue, not acceptance, but maybe tolerance.....now if the gays would step off their high horse and treat those that don't agree with them with the same tolerance they want, things might get better on this issue, but i don't see that happenong, from either side.....oh and one other thing, for me this isn't about the "PEOPLE" its about the lifestyle and the influence they are trying to dicate as normal to the kids of our county as normal.....

Read this, all of you and enjoy:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gay Marriage Debate- Part 1

Written by Joe in Politics, Theology
10-21-2008
You, me, and theology Blog Archive Gay Marriage Debate- Part 1

I just sent in my absentee ballot for the 2008 elections. Of course I had the privilege of voting for President, but that isn’t what I want to write about today. The issue here is gay marriage. Florida is proposing a new article to the state constitution officially recognizing marriage as a union between one man and one woman only. To spoil all the suspense, I voted for marriage only being between man and woman, but I must say I did not come to that conclusion lightly. In part one I’ll explain my reluctance to agree to the amendment as follows:

Florida Marriage Protection AmendmentThis amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized. The direct financial impact this amendment will have on state and local government revenues and expenditures cannot be determined, but is expected to be minor.

O- Yes

O- No

Let me start by saying my views on gay marriage are mixed. Ultimately, I believe the best answer to the gay marriage question is c- none of the above. (this position will be explained in the last paragraph of part two which explains why I voted to “protect marriage”) But, before we get there I’ll delve into why we should have a hard look at actually recognizing same-sex marriages as legally binding arrangements.Many people have a firm belief that the government should stay out of our personal lives. That is a very valid perspective. If a guy wants to go to Vegas and bet his life savings on a single spin of the roulette wheel, then he should be able to do that, regardless of how irresponsible it is. If a guy wants to drink all the time he can do that, but will suffer all the natural ramifications of that kind of behavior. If two guys want to have sex, they are well within their rights to do so, but will suffer spiritual separation from the Lord and some limitations in their interactions with people who do not agree with that lifestyle.There’s a movie coming out called Breakfast With Scott. In this movie two gay men adopt a little boy. They let him put on makeup and a frilly scarf and run around town and go to school like that. The kid’s sexual identity is utterly in ruins. This looks like one of the most upsetting movies possible to any religious person who cares about sexual ethics. If gay couples are aloud to legally marry, it will open doors for same-sex couples to do stuff like that. But here’s the thing, shouldn’t Christians be the ones adopting abandoned and orphaned children? Why are we not doing that?Christ has some very tough teaching and often, his teachings are completely contrary to our way of thinking. What might He think about some issues we face today. Let’s look at torture. McCain and Obama both claim to be against all torture. I have to say, at first I thought that was naive to the point of recklessness. If you’ve ever watched 24 you’ve seen Jack Bauer torture people to save the day over and over again. But, what would our Lord say about it. I’m pretty sure He’d say to let evil be done by evil people, and we should do what is right, come what may.Ted Dekker wrote a trilogy of books, Red, Black, and White. In these books was a theme of romancing the Lord. Basically, the idea is to follow the Lord with reckless abandon, obeying Him, trusting Him to work things out for good. Christ said to offer the other cheek if slapped. He practiced that teaching at the expense of his own life. He said that if someone wants to take something from you, you should give it freely and then some. This stuff doesn’t add up in our own way of thinking, but God does not think like we do. These teachings can only be followed out of deep heartsick love for the Father.

Jesus frequently took what seemed logical and turned it on its head. What might Jesus say of gay marriage. I don’t know, but He might call us Christians hypocrites. Is it up to Christians to stop the world from sinning by making laws governing behavior, or is it up to us to do what is right, regardless of the law?

Another critique might be that the government is utterly unqualified to say who should or should not marry. Half of the marriages approved by Uncle Sam end in divorce. The Government is so blind it allowed Kid Rock and Pamela Anderson to marry. That marriage lasted, what, two weeks? Is that any less appalling to the holy institution of marriage than two women tying the knot? We have to realize there is the holy institution of marriage created by our Lord, and the legal institution of marriage created by the state. These are two completely different animals.

An oppressive government could dissolve the institution of marriage altogether, but that would have little effect on people entering into a marriage covenant before God. The state could call anything they like marriage. They could say a man is allowed to marry his dog. God doesn’t care about what is legal, God cares about what is done. I ask you what is better, a state with gay marriage rights and a population that understands the God-centered nature of marriage and the proper relationships between men and women, or a state against gay marriage with lots of gay couples who feel they’re being oppressed by the right-wing Christian conservatives?

Also, This is a civil liberty issue. The state (the law) has no feeling for or against homosexuality. The law does not see homosexuality as sin, and just because something is wrong does not mean it should be illegal. (i.e. adultery, hate, atheism, idol worship. Note: all of these things are just as bad, if not worse than homosexuality) Homosexuality itself is the sin. The couple being in a committed relationship with legal rights adds nothing to the sinful nature of homosexuality. It could even be said that it is worse for homosexuals to be in multiple uncommitted relationships than a single committed one.

All I’m saying is that we have to be really careful about limiting freedom. We do not live in a theocracy and this is a very big issue for gay couples. Homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle. It is an abomination to the Lord. All sin, but particularly sexual sin, separates us from relationship with God. I don’t think any of us truly understand it’s ramification. Yet, it’s very hard to argue against homosexuality outside the context of religion. I’m against the lifestyle. I love the people. I’m not so sure we should be against the freedom to pursue that dark path. Many Christians are passionately against homosexuals legally marrying, but where is the outrage over other marriage issues, rampant divorce, shacking up, premarital sex, sexual experimentation, pornography, nudity in mainstream movies? About a year ago I realized that half the movies in my top ten had nudity. I recently asked someone who was against gay marriage if she thought homosexuality should be legal. She was… undecided leaning toward No. Is that the Christian way? Should we force Christian morality on a world of unbelievers?

Side note here- The gay marriage amendment also specified marriage as only between one man and one woman. This is curious to me. Many religious people have polygamy on sinful par with gay marriage. I’m not quite sure how polygamy has become so offensive. Nowhere in the Bible is polygamy taught as sin. There are more than a few heros from the Bible with more than one wife; David, Solomon, Abraham, maybe even Moses (Moses had two wives, but it’s not clear to me if he had them at the same time). The New Testament teaches that deacons should not have more than one wife (1 Timothy 3:12), but I have found no position taken beyond that. Also, even in the time of the Levitical laws, there was no mention of polygamy. No matter how contrary it may seem to modern American Christian values, I have to conclude that polygamy is not a moral issue with God. It is a cultural issue and an issue of priority. The Apostle Paul wrote of the virtues of abstinence saying it is good if we can live our lives committed only to Christ. “He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord–how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world–how he may please his wife.” (1 Cor 7: 32-33), but ” because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.” (1 Cor 7: 1-2) Obviously this implies a standard of less wives being better than more wives. But, it doesn’t call polygamy sin, does it? I have sometimes wondered how many Muslims in foreign countries might have embraced Christianity if not for this issue? I’m not sure how missionaries deal with it. Hopefully they welcome all into the fold, regardless their number of wives.

-Joseph Mazerac

The 2nd a part is on the next post on this thread...

 

[chefdennis]

part 2 from post by chef dennis

Gay Marriage Debate- Part 2

Written by Joe in Politics, Theology
10/22/2008
You, me, and theology Blog Archive Gay Marriage Debate- Part 2

In the previous entry, “Gay Marriage Debate- Part 1″ I discussed my reluctance to accept legally recognized marriage as only between one man and one woman. In this continuation, I will share why I ultimately agreed to the following amendment:

Florida Marriage Protection Amendment

This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized. The direct financial impact this amendment will have on state and local government revenues and expenditures cannot be determined, but is expected to be minor.

O- Yes
O- No

Part of the problem with not accepting gay marriage is the arguments. Here are the two main arguments I hear against gay marriage:

1- If gay marriage is legalized there’ll be two gay dudes on every street corner French kissing.

2- If gay marriage is legalized the United States will suffer God’s wrathful whirlwind.

As a thinking Christian, I have issue with both of those arguments. Let’s start with the kissing issue. I have unmarried straight guy friends, and I don’t know a single one who’d ditch a girlfriend and start dating some hairy dude just because that relationship could end up with a marriage license. Might it embolden some homosexuals? Okay, but a straight couple frenching in public isn’t even socially acceptable. What makes someone think same-sex couples would be so brazen? Furthermore, making out isn’t illegal now. Girls can smooch other girls in public.. Madonna and Brittany kissed on national television and no one was arrested, because it’s not illegal.

Now, the wrath of God issue. One can actually make a decent theological wrath of God argument about homosexuality. But, about gay marriage? The wrath of God argument is a sexual immorality argument and lends itself to all sexual immorality, not just homosexuality. It covers adultery, lust, uncommitted sexual relationships, rape, etc. With the exception of rape, the other sexual sins, including homosexuality, are all perfectly legal. Same-sex couples getting an arbitrary license from the state is of little or no consequence to the wrath of God. The deviant sexual lifestyles are the offences and those lifestyles are already legal.

Here is a much better argument.

To talk about this we have to understand that legally acknowledged marriage is a privilege, not a right. Nowhere in the Constitution is marriage recognized, so it becomes a state issue and states issue marriage licenses, much like they issue drivers licenses. Also we have to recognize the three parties typically involved; the church, the state, and the individuals.
Holy marriage, legal marriage, and individuals’ perceptions of marriage are all separate. The CHURCH should never have to recognize marriages that are not in accordance with its religious precepts. The STATE should not have to recognize marriages that are not in accordance with its laws. And, INDIVIDUALS should never be forced to marry by anything other than their own traditions.

The Church-The Holy institution of marriage is a right of the religious in accordance with their religious beliefs, regardless of what those beliefs are, and regardless of the laws of the state.

The State- Sates recognize and issue licenses to only those couples that fit its parameters for the most stable, productive, and acceptable forms of marriage. This is done in accordance with the will of the people.

The Individual- Any and all consenting adults can marry whoever is willing in morally binding commitment to one another, regardless of the state, and regardless of the church. This is not to say that all commitments are moral, but that an oath is a morally binding thing. Commitment is a condition of the mind and heart. Neither legislation issued by a government, nor decree issued by a church can add to moral commitment or take such commitment away.

So we have the church, the state, and the individuals. Here are a few examples of these three entities at work.

-A couple could say to one another, “we are husband and wife,” and it would be so. Only, it would not be recognized by the state or the church. This freedom is how polygamist sects can exist. A man may marry ten adult consenting women in accordance with their traditions, but only one of the wives will be recognized by the state government, and usually none are recognized by the Christian Church.

-If the state recognized gay marriage it does not affect Holy marriage or an individual’s perception of marriage. A church cannot be obligated to perform the ceremonies and it goes far beyond that. A church does not have to marry anyone, regardless of the sexual orientation. They can even make a couple go through counseling to determine if the there is a firm enough foundation for marriage. In the same way, individuals cannot be forced to marry someone of the same sex regardless of the new law.

-A cult may decide they do not believe in marriage, or they believe in open marriages with many partners, or they only believe in same-sex marriage. They can do all those things, but none of it has to be recognized by the state and individuals are not legally obligated to abide by the cults rules.

-Individuals can decide for whatever reason, they don’t believe in marriage, or they believe in open marriages, or they only believe in same-sex marriage, or regular marriages. But again, the state is not obligated to acknowledge any of it and neither are individuals subject to some random person’s personal convictions.

A legally recognized marriage is certified with a nifty little piece of paper called a marriage license. Licenses are issued for privileges, not rights, like driving. When a person turns a certain age, and can prove the ability to safely operate a vehicle, that person is issued a license by the state. That state’s drivers license can be taken away for a number of reasons, including traffic violations, moving to a different state, or if the person finds themselves with an new infirmary like blindness, that would inhibit their ability to drive.

States issue licenses for fishing, curtain types of guns, and many regulated trades like electricians. The license in question here is the marriage license. For whatever reason, it has been a legally accepted truth that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Already, most, if not all states have laws, not against certain other types of marriage, but rather, only recognizing one type as legally binding; that is the marriage of one man and one woman.

The Supreme Court has shown on many occasions that whatever personal relational covenants people of legal age and of sound mind make between one another are fine, and the state cannot interfere, even if it does not condone. So, the church can go on marrying straight people, cults can do their thing, and individuals can do whatever individuals do.

This is what moral people of many backgrounds want. Lots of activities are legal, yet not approved by the state, but since a license is in effect a stamp of approval, it is asked that the state licence only the most stable, productive, and accepted form of marriage, the traditional one woman one man arrangement. People can marry with their hearts and souls, but as far as the state is concerned it would only officially license the “regular” ones. Most Christians want the state to keep their noses and licenses out of all deviant forms.

In my view, the biggest mistake the homosexual community and its supporters make is pushing beyond civil liberty to normalization and moral equivalence of same-sex relationships. Pornography is legal and an epidemic sin problem within our culture far more rampant than homosexuality, yet pornography is not taught as a normal and okay. Another example, hate is legal, but even taught against in school. There are apparently already schools in this country that show cartoonish picture books with gay couples to little kids in the name of diversity education. The issue of whether homosexuals should legally be allowed to wed, and whether or not that lifestyle should be taught to our kids as normal and okay are two separate and very different issues. I can accept many things as legal that I do not accept as okay. A rather large portion of freedom is about going against the grain. Freedom isn’t a popularity contest.

Option C:

I wrote in part one that ultimately, I believe the best answer to the gay marriage question is c- none of the above. Another option might have been for the state to take a lesson from the Federal Government and not address marriage directly in any way.

Consider this scenario. What if, God forbid, my house burned to the ground and most of my personal documents were lost. Then, for whatever reason, years later I wanted to have a look at my Marriage License. At that point I discover the license was lost in the fire. So, I call up the State of California, where I was married, and somehow they had also lost all record of my marriage. Would that mean I was never married to my wife? According to the sate, YES! But, that is because the state is dumb. Of course my wife and I are married! We made vows before the Lord in the presence of many witnesses. I know for a fact I am married because I was at the wedding! If I said to my wife, “Look honey, we’re not married after all. I think we should use this opportunity to start seeing other people,” I bet she would have a few things to say about that!

So, why do we need the state to issue “Marriage Licenses” at all? The picture of marriage most people have in their heads and the picture drawn by a “Marriage License” are two completely different things. People make vows to stay together for life in committed love for one another, but the Marriage License has precious little to do with that. A Marriage License is nothing more than a legal document that irons out state legal issues like spouse benefit rights on a healthcare plan and the division of property should the marriage not work out. The state could have a few standardized civil union contracts for couples to sign in conjunction with vows of commitment settling issues like child custody, health benefits, and hospital visitation rights. This type of arrangement might better address the inevitable legal issues caused by people who, for all practical legal purposes, live like they are married. That is all the law cares about anyway. Married or not, people live together, have kids, and share property. These arrangements have legal ramifications and that is what the state wants to work out by issuing Marriage Licenses.

Option C might be a more suitable approach than the state saying “this is marriage and this is not.”
-Joseph Mazerac

 

[MrGautama]

Today is my 23rd anniversary, It is a strong marriage.

Happy anniversary Doug!!

​

 

[Turtle]

I imagine the reason gays want to marry is because it's denied them.

That's pretty much it, right there. They can't have it, but they want it, therefore they want it.

But, there significant problems in denying them gay marriage which are in fact, totally unfair - things like the legal responsibilities and protections that go along with a marriage. They should not be denied those under any circumstances, just like they are not denied to heterosexual married couples.

The civil union is the same as the 'separate but equal' treatment of black people: separate, yes, but equal? No.

That's really not the same thing at all. A civil Union is equal in the eyes of the law, and it is not separate. It is the same exact thing as a marriage performed in a civil ceremony at the courthouse with the only exception being that the religious aspects of the term "marriage" are removed, aspects that gays don't want anything to do with in the first place. If you want freedom from religion to apply to a legal marriage, it goes both ways where you would then have to have a "marriage" for heterosexual couples, since that's what it is, and then some other term for homosexual couples that mean the same thing legally, like a "civil union", without having to redefine the religious term of "marriage".

Prohibiting gay marriage on religious grounds is unfair - freedom of religion requires freedom from religion as well.

Marriage was invented by religion for the holy union of a man and a woman, and it is, ultimately, a religious institution. The fundamental base of marriage is based in religion, so to say that prohibiting gay marriage on religious grounds is unfair is like saying prohibiting gay Baptism or gay Holy Communion on religious grounds is unfair. It's really not.

In today's world being married carries with it certain legal issues, so to be married also means to also take on certain legal responsibilities and have certain legal protections that go far beyond the ceremony of a holy union. As a result, the religious holy marriage and the legal civil marriage have evolved over time to become essentially one in the same, but the civil end of it has always been based on the religious end of it, meaning a union between a man and a woman.

A marriage and a civil union, while over time has become to mean the same thing in the traditional sense, they can still nonetheless be separated out to where you can get married in a civil ceremony at the courthouse and it's a legal union devoid of religious grounds. It's still called a marriage for the obvious reasons, being that of the union of a man and a woman. Conversely, just like you can get married in your back yard or your kitchen and it's marriage but not a legal marriage, and may or may not be transferable to a legal one.

Your religion is not my religion, and vice versa.

That's true, but the fact that "marriage" is a religious term remains. If you want to remove the religious aspect from it, you can't call it marriage, nor can you simply redefine the term to mean whatever the heck you want it to mean.

 

[iceroadtrucker]

IRAQVET

Wake up call to ya.

They have surrounded them selves.

Dont you do it as well. Let common sense be your guide.

 

[cheri1122]

I "can't remove the religious aspect and still call it marriage"? Yes, I can, and I did.
As I mentioned earlier, religion itself took many rituals from pagan worship and changed them to suit their own agenda, so it's ironic that they now insist none of their own rituals be changed.

 

[DougTravels]

Turtle you hit on a very plausable idea there.

The thought of gov't not using the term marriage, since it came actually from religion, which should make it separate.

Whether married in a church or joined by a Justice of peace or town mayor. The Gov't could refer to all as civil unions.

That would solve all, in the gov't eyes all would be joined. In your eyes it would be what it was to you.

**** that just makes too much sense to work.

 

[MrGautama]

Sorry Chef, I tried but had to stop at "If two guys want to have sex, they are well within their rights to do so, but will suffer spiritual separation from the Lord."

 

[DougTravels]

Happy anniversary Doug!!




Thanks! It is a tough day to be 2k miles from home​

 

[chefdennis]

No problem MrG, the guy has the basis for an agreement with the liberal point of view...he see's it from both sides...i guess your inability to read beyond what you can't deal with is kind of like the intolerance from both sides on this issue...if it doesn't fit for you, its not worth reading............

 

[DougTravels]

I read it all Chef:
The guy takes a Greg334like amount of words (sorry Greg couldn't resist) to basically support why he is against something, that others would like do that has no affect whatsoever on his life.
A sure tell is how many words it took him to say he was against it without ever saying what business it was of his what others did.
I especially loved the part about the gay guys adopting a boy and sending him to school with makeup on.

He might have a couple of little green men in his head.

 

[Turtle]

Here it goes, first of all marriage is a fundamental right according to the Supreme Court.

Not in the context of gay marriage it's not, and the justices have spoken specifically to that issue in their ruling. The only people who try to use the Loving v Virginia ruling and apply it to gay marriage are gays. And every time it's been employed, the court has rejected it.

Next, as an experiment to see how this really looks when analyzed from a distance I'm going to take some of the remarks made in this thread and slip the word Jew where gay or homosexual were and religious for sexual and what we got?

We got a fallacy of Associative Conditioning is what we got, whereby one tries to equate religion, race and creed with homosexuality even though they are fundamentally different. As the courts have ruled, the historical background of race is a far different one that one homosexuality. From Hernandez v Robles, the court ruled: "But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

I personally, as Cheri would put it, don't give a flying fig about gays;

I can't stop laughing.

Oh, Stewart! Stop it!