Homosexual Columnist Blasts Gay Marriage

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

  1. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,564
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,307
    It was certainly something that many, I assume a majority, of citizens in the Southern states wanted. Many claimed religious reasons for it, citing the Bible.
  2. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,325
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +499
    I am not sure that it was a majority, but I in no way defend the actions of the South during that time. I would be right there with you fighting against segregation. There were also many Christians from the north that long opposed the racial oppression of the south. One example, is that the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention was the result of a split between Baptists that had very much to do with politics.

    Let's get back on topic, though. What does segregation have to do with my proposed solution? My proposal totally levels the playing field.
  3. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    I support calling the governmental 'contract' a 'civil union' for all. It's still 'marriage' since marriage is not really owned by anyone, and I agree, it avoids separate and unequal.

    In any case, it's not just about liberals as many conservatives reject even civil unions for gays. Or they take up the late emerging argument that they want government out of the marriage biz altogether even if I think many of them don't really believe such an argument. If government were to get out of the marriage biz, it would necessarily mean that gays would be able to marry anywhere, but that marriage for heterosexual and homosexual couples would lose quite a bit of formal significance.
  4. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,807
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,319
    I think deep down heterosexuals know that having their marriage blessed by God doesn't really matter in the physical world. If hetherosexuals actually believed that having their marriage sanctified by God was what really mattered, they wouldn't need the higher power of government to legitimize it.
  5. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,325
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +499
    Whether or not such a civil union is marriage would be a matter that is up for debate. And it also leaves open the question of who and what owns and defines marriage. I believe that marriage is owned by God and that we have no power to alter that which God has created. I also believe that even if the state passed a law redefining marriage that it would be invalid. To me it is no different than the state passing a law that says that gravity no longer exists or that the holocaust never happened. The state does not possess the power to alter the distinction between fact and fiction. If the state passes a bill stating that gravity no longer exists, then the result will be a government that suppresses truth and impedes progress. I see marriage the same way.

    Civil unions for everyone is an interesting proposition for the left to consider. Based on the way that Azcat has argued in this thread I think he would have a hard time even making sense of the word "marriage" if it no longer was an official institution sponsored by the state. It is an interesting question to consider because marriage can live on in the Christian worldview without the government recognizing its existence. But can marriage possibly have a meaningful existence in the eyes of a statist without government recognizing its existence?

    If marriage is not connected to government or religion, then what does it really mean when a couple says, "We're married!"?
  6. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,325
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +499
    I will disagree with your first sentence, but your last sentence is dead on. If marriage is sanctified by God, then that is the only true justification that legitimizes marriage. Does that mean that I am indifferent towards the idea of government passing a law saying that marriage applies to both homosexuals and heterosexuals? Not at all. I would oppose such a law just like I would oppose a law being passed that stated that the holocaust never happened.
  7. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    I understand what you are saying and can respect your view as to what marriage means to you within your own belief system, but the reality is that the state, i.e. the people, i.e. larger society in which we all share, has every right to call it marriage or call it a civil union. In civil society, the term is not "owned" by anyone. And since laws are human made, whether the government through the people calls it marriage or civil union or some other term (as long it's the same for both gays and straights), it would still be a marriage as commonly understood. I don't think it makes any sense to compare marriage to the 'law of gravity' since marriage is a social construction whereas gravity simply exists and we just labeled it as such.
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2013
  8. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,434
    Likes Received:
    480
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,798
    Highly doubt this argument will be front and center in 20 years

    It's not even an argument for most for young folks, and caring about it with your passion will die off

    The definition and institution of marriage is the same whether it be heterosexual, interracial, or same sex couples...the quality of it does not change based on who is making the vows
    • Like Like x 1
  9. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,691
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +737
    Without the authority vested by the power of government, there is nothing sanctifying my marriage. No government marriage license saying I'm married, them I am not married. Even if we lived as a married couple, we do not subject ourselves to any religious law. Not that the government dictates my relationship. Far from it. But there are good reasons why we wanted to and have remained married for over 16 years. And we wouldn't want that to ever go away.

    And while civil unions for all is great in theory, in practice I fear it would be used as de facto discrimination. There is no legal precedence to go on, and the civil union for all "movement" reeks of keeping gay unions separate, and their unequal.

    Last but not least, the word marriage and the concept has never been completely "owned" by any religion. There had always been a civil aspect to marriage. And if the religious types are against gay marriages being equal, why not create a separate "Church Marriage" document that only those married in the eyes of God can get. The civil paperwork will remain the same and all couples get equal protection in the eyes of the law. And churches would be free to discriminate as they please, including with my marriage, done by a JP at a resort--no God involved.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    Well said.

    I am not worried if the license is called a marriage or civil union as long the name is the same for both and the benefits and rights associated with the institution are equal. Churches can call it whatever they want and besides, some religious folk will never view same sex marriage as legitimate, or gays for that matter, but state recognition, not religious recognition, is the linchpin for ensuring that the institution is fairly appropriated.
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2013
  11. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,979
    Likes Received:
    369
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,556
    But it is to him, and many others. My position is clear on religion (not), but I do have some respect for others. And while I understand the resistance to accept the premise of religious belief as something inherent in humanity, I am of the opinion that for many it pretty much is for all intents and purposes. And, frankly, there are many I wouldn't change to my beliefs if I could as I feel it is a major part of who they are.
  12. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,979
    Likes Received:
    369
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,556

    Where are all these religious schools who both ban enrollment of students with a gay parent(s) AND accept federal money? I assume he's speaking of vouchers. Easy fix. You accept vouchers, you can't deny based on sexual orientation of the parent(s).
  13. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,979
    Likes Received:
    369
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,556
    We'll see.

    Used to think that about abortion. Oh damn, Texas just peed in the punch.
  14. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,979
    Likes Received:
    369
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,556

    To some, that is no doubt the motivation. For others, not so much. Nevertheless, who cares what your nose or intuition tells you? That's like saying we should base a political movement on religion, as it's just as subjective. So, in the end, your prime motivation to resist any such legislation or movement is based on your perception of what you think others secretly believe.
  15. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,810
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,686
    Exactly.

    His gut is all he has to rely on after getting proved ridiculously wrong about the whole "separate is NEVER equal" absolute (ignoring Supreme Court opinions on affirmative action, baseball's exemption from antitrust law, etc).
  16. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,810
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,686
    "De facto"

    Nice. Of course, there's no actual evidence of any discrimination, but because you FEEL like it would be, then, of course, it's discriminatory.

    And yes, there is ample legal precedent. Affirmative action, for starters. But really, there are many more. I suppose I'm ignoring liberalism 101: it's only racist/bigotry/discriminatory when conservatives do it.
  17. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,434
    Likes Received:
    480
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,798
    There are 2 exact water fountains, with the same quality of water, side by side

    Above them, one reads "For Whites Only", the other "For Blacks"

    What is the justification for keeping them separate after the SC voted to end segregation?
  18. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,810
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,686
    In your example? Nothing, assuming they provided the same quality water and were the same exact water fountain.

    But that isn't what the Supreme Court found in their opinion. Separate facilities weren't funded or maintained at anywhere close to "equal" levels. Again, as has been said multiple times in this thread, it'd help if you actually read the SC opinion overturning "separate but equal."

    Seriously, please educate yourself.
  19. helix139
    Offline

    helix139 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,722
    Likes Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,946
    None, because being black or white has absolutely nothing to do with a person's ability to drink water from a fountain.

    Gender of the partners has EVERYTHING to do with their ability to be married and enjoy the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to the fullest degree
  20. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,847
    Likes Received:
    491
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,168
    Well, the argument was once that race did have something to do with the ability to practice and enjoy FULL citizenship too. That changed. Now the idea that gender matters to marriage is changing too. Some organically, some due to policy. Just like with race back in the day.

Share This Page