Homosexual Columnist Blasts Gay Marriage

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatorplank, Nov 18, 2013.

  1. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,061
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +347
    I would not deny you and your wife your marriage. The thing I don't understand is why the government sanctioning your marriage matters so much to you. I can only guess why. Since you don't acknowledge God's authority but desire some higher power to legitimize your marriage government is the only higher power that you can point to in order to claim that your marriage is objectively real. I honestly could care less if the government sanctions marriage or not. In this area I don't think the government is necessary. For me, all I need to know is that marriage, as created by God, is legitimate.

    I think deep down homosexuals know that what they are doing is not blessed by God. If homosexuals actually believed that God sanctified what they are doing they wouldn't need the higher power of government to legitimize it.

    You asked me if I would deny you and your wife your marriage. The question I have is what exactly would it mean to deny a couple of their marriage? Does that mean denying you of the power of attorney? The question I have for you is this: If the government no longer sanctioned your marriage would you still be married?
  2. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    Business/corporate law is a type of civil law. There shouldn't be any confusion on this. You talking about each as if they are entirely separate is fairly amusing though.

    As is your backtracking: "ok, so maybe the law does protect separate arrangements in certain situations, but it's OK when liberals say it is!!!"

    Cool. Glad we got that out of the way.
  3. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    If you can't answer the question, that tells me everything I need to know.

    If a religion needs state-approval for it's teachings, then it isn't really a religion.
  4. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    Nah, not quite.

    Gays should absolutely have the same secular, legal rights that straight couples do.

    But the continued assault on religious freedom in this country does get a bit tiresome. Because that's really what it boils down to for most "gay rights" proponents. Unconditional surrender and forced acceptance. No compromise whatsoever.
  5. tegator80
    Online

    tegator80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,927
    Likes Received:
    887
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Ratings Received:
    +1,794
    It is fun to get back to this thread from time to time, just to see how each side tags someone else in to fight their fight.:laugh:

    I would argue that your statement above is a little more out there than what makes most people tick. Kind of like saying that the true reason people don't kill other people is because they believe that God will punish them. That may be true for many people but not a majority of people, IMO. Humans are reactionary and don't stop to reflect. And I don't doubt that is the same way for marriage and all of the potential iterations that whirl around in the minds of people.

    To me, the issue of marriage and its current situation is much more about the underpinnings of why marriage, commitment to the family and raising children morally is desirable (necessary?) to the success of the society so that government got involved in a strictly spiritual endeavor. Unfortunately those underpinnings have been eroded to a place where the general population can't distinguish any difference between heterosexual marriage and children-raising and the other arenas of human interactions. So if they are similar then why not make them equal?

    And there is the rub that this thread keeps spinning. We are creatures of habit and if we are used to a government-endorsed marriage we are loath to give that up, even though marriage is NOT supposed to be a government endeavor but a spiritual one between the parties and God. Eliminating government in marriage in no way affects the actual relationships of the committed people.
  6. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,116
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,496
    Right. It's not an attack on religion .... it's just an attack on religion. What religious freedoms would you be losing?
  7. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,070
    Likes Received:
    470
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,557

    Indeed.

    So reaffirm the rights, and let them shut up about their issues. After all, they will be obscenely happy then.

    Will it happen (shutting up) ?

    Of course not.
  8. AzCatFan
    Online

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,513
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +521
    I figured this would be your reply. We are not replacing God with government. But having government recognize and legitimize my marriage is important. It means my wife and I receive all the rights and responsibilities of a married couple.

    And if the government didn't recognize my marriage, it wouldn't change my relationship. But we'd miss some benefits such as the ability to be on my wife's insurance. And our marriage being recognized internationally when we travel.
    And if you agree gay couples deserve the same rights, then you are for gay marriage. Religion does not have domain over marriage. And if the only reason you think gays should have civil unions instead of marriage due to religious reasons, that ship had already sailed. There are already non-religious marriages equal to other marriages.
  9. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    Allowing gay couples to have secular legal rights? Why, none.

    Which is why I've never objected to it.

    If rights are what truly matters here and there exists a compromise that would give rights to gay couples, why wouldn't one seek compromise?

    Can you answer that question or do I need to draw a cute cartoon to accompany it for you to notice it?
  10. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,116
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,496
    why do they need to compromise because of your religious beliefs? they're not trying to dictate your actions. what say do you have in theirs?
  11. helix139
    Online

    helix139 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,114
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,459
    Tell that to Christian business owners that provide wedding related services who are being sued for not wanting to provide those services for gay ceremonies
  12. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    Because that's what democracy is about? Compromising to find the best arrangement for everyone.

    Marriage is sacred to many religions. Integral to their religious faith and religious belief.

    And many in the gay rights movement are trying to dictate actions. They sue businesses and individuals for refusing them service. Personally, I don't think that's smart business sense for the owners that refuse service...but why the need to sue? The need to FORCE someone to do something they don't agree with? And, moreover, what's to stop them from later suing religious hospitals or religious schools for similar things?
  13. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,061
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +347
    Azcat, you never answered my question. If the government no longer sanctioned your marriage, then would you still be married?
  14. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,116
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,496
    that doesn't answer the basic question: Why should your religion have any impact on the legal situation involving others? If Hindus think the cow is sacred, why should you need to compromise on eating beef? because we're a democracy?
  15. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    History? Tradition? Respect for others?

    I mean, there are a number of different reasons one could choose from.

    And the law allows for history/tradition to be used as a legal justification for various civil policies, so before you come back saying "those aren't good enough"...remember, that's been good enough for the Court on several other occasions.

    You going to continue to ignore my questions though? Cool. I figured you had no answer to them.
  16. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,061
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +347
    The government exists to serve the people. If a large segment of the population feels that the government's actions reflect animosity towards their religion when an alternate constitutional option exists, then why wouldn't the government take the alternate option that best serves the people?
  17. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,116
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,496
    Like keeping segregation in the South?
  18. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    Are you dense? Segregation was overturned decades ago.
  19. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,116
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,496
    Wow, it was? Man, you are just way too smart for me. I just can't keep up!
  20. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,061
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +347
    Segregation was unconstitutional. What I have proposed is not unconstitutional. I will agree that the marriage license and contract as defined in U.S. law is obsolete. It is about 50 years behind the culture. I think any liberal would agree with that. I also think that most liberals would agree that America is divided on the meaning of marriage. We live in a culture where it would be polarizing for the government to pick a side. The thing that most of us do agree upon, however, is the idea that everyone is entitled to the rights associated with the contract that we call a "civil union."

    The argument with respect to segregation is the idea that having marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals is separate and not equal. My proposal even dodges that issue because there would be no such thing as government marriage. Civil unions would be the only government contract available to heterosexuals or homosexuals. So everyone would still have power of attorney and all of the other legal rights that we currently associate with the marriage license.

    There are only two possible reasons I can think of for a liberal to reject that proposal. The first reason is because they want to agitate their political adversaries. The second reason is that liberals do not believe that a culture should be able to dictate its own laws. The ideology and the dogma of the party are the things that should dictate U.S. law even if the culture resists that ideology. If the culture resists that ideology, then the solution is to change the culture by thrusting that ideology on the people because they will eventually accept it.

Share This Page