Pro-gay-rights folks, I don't understand y'all

[Pong]

Not one of y’all trying to put this on the rest of is yet to tell me where we are gonna draw the line on what makes a marriage. I say AGAIN, if gays have the right to redefine a marriage, than the polygamist has that same right.

I draw the line at consenting adults. I don’t really care is 4 men and 9 women want to think of themselves as “married” and have some sort of legal recognition that says so. It really doesn’t affect me. The Church’s laws and the government’s are not the same thing I and would never want them to be. Before somebody starts once again down that icy mountainside, people and pets together are out. The bottom line, for me anyway, is that what people choose to do as far as how and with whom they spend their life is not my concern; my concern is a government who takes it uppon itself to regulate the self-regarding vices.

 

[BamaRider]

Pong said-

I draw the line at consenting adults. I don’t really care is 4 men and 9 women want to think of themselves as “married” and have some sort of legal recognition that says so. It really doesn’t affect me. The Church’s laws and the government’s are not the same thing I and would never want them to be. Before somebody starts once again down that icy mountainside, people and pets together are out. The bottom line, for me anyway, is that what people choose to do as far as how and with whom they spend their life is not my concern; my concern is a government who takes it uppon itself to regulate the self-regarding vices.

---

Common sense Catholicism works for me…

Why oh why do people preface opinions with “sorry, but”? It’s an opinion; it doesn’t require sorrow.

Well at least we know where you stand. You think the state should sanction and give a marriage license to anything. You’d let fly a guy coming down to the courthouse with as many ladies as he could talk into it, marry theim all to one guy.

I happen to believe that is incorrect behavior, but I’m not for putting them in jail, just don’t make it a legal marriage.

I’ll say this though, at least you’re honest.

Then I noticed in Pongs signature line-

Every reasonable human being should be a moderate Socialist.

Thomas Mann

:ehh:

 

[Pong]

Not really sure why my signature line is being called into question. But since, as you’ve said, I’m honest, I will say that I am a firm believer in moderate socialism in as much as it allows for a more equal distribution of wealth and social programs while still preserving the rights of the individual to function as an autonomous human being.

 

[BamaRider]

will say that I am a firm believer in moderate socialism in as much as it allows for a more equal distribution of wealth and social programs while still preserving the rights of the individual to function as an autonomous human being.

---

Again I appreciate your honesty. Most socialist try to hide what they truly believe.

“equal distribution of wealth” Dang, ya mean I can look for a check from Bill Gates, cause a big gap between me and him and that ain’t right.

 

[Pong]

Notice I said "a more equal distribution of wealth. I am not advocating telling people that they cannot keep the money that they earned through honest business practices. I am advocating a cap on corporate greed, ie the buyng and selling of subprime mortgages.

Most socialist try to hide what they truly believe.

Did you trip on your way to that conclusion? We really aren’t planning some nefarious plot to overthrow the system and end the world as we know it. Part of the reason that many socialists hide the fact that they are socialists is because there are still so many people in the States that can’t figure out the difference between “socialist”, “communist”, and “torch-bearing ogre”.

 

[BamaRider]

I said "a more equal distribution of wealth. I am not advocating telling people that they cannot keep the money that they earned through honest business practices. I am advocating a cap on corporate greed, ie the buyng and selling of subprime mortgages.

So individual greed is ok? Why is it wrong for Ford to want to make all the money it can? As long as they do it honestly I don’t have a problem with it.

Then pong said-

Did you trip on your way to that conclusion? We really aren’t planning some nefarious plot to overthrow the system and end the world as we know it. Part of the reason that many socialists hide the fact that they are socialists is because there are still so many people in the States that can’t figure out the difference between “socialist”, “communist”, and “torch-bearing ogre”.

I live and prosper in a system like the world has never seen. In just 200 years, a country of only 240 million people produced the wealthiest, most innovative, most powerful nation the world has ever seen.

I’m not for anyone tinkering with such a successful system. But we’re gettin off topic.

 

[Pong]

But we’re gettin off topic.

True, but it sounds like a cracking discussion for another thread.

 

[Exalt]

Why are you so afraid of democracy?

I am afraid of democracy when the many rise up to diminish the rights of the few. Democracy is a great thing, to be sure, but one that must be measured and cared for. Part of this democracy includes protecting ALL people from tyranny and guaranteeing the rights of every single American.

 

[Exalt]

But you claimed that people supported it! You even linked to a poll you claimed showed this(of course it didnt.)

Actually, I claimed that your statement was wrong. You said that “there is very little support for it [same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional] in the country.” There is indeed a great deal of support, which you diminished.

 

[Exalt]

It is the place of the government to do the peoples’ will, right or wrong.

Ew. Bad. It is never the place of ANYONE or ANYTHING to do the will of anyone, right or wrong.

 

[Exalt]

Why does this keep coming up? It is NOT the samething.

Ah, the wonders of allegory. It’s a literary device, it’s not supposed to be the same thing.

BUT the state can dang sure define what a marriage is for the purpose legality. Example: death SSI death benefits, go to the surviving spouse, in a legal marriage,* not *a live in. Thank God in Alabama that is defined as a man and a woman.

So in other words, you would want those benefits to go to someone other than the same-sex spouse? If it was an *opposite-sex *spouse, those benefits ought to go to them, right?

THAT IS DISCRIMINATION.

It is NOT the place of the government to enforce your religion’s condemnation of homosexuality on those individuals. That’s right there in the ESTABLISHMENT clause of the constitution. NUMERO UNO in the bill of rights!

where do you draw the line on what a marriage is?

Give me a situation (or two or three) and I’ll tell you my opinion. Essentially, though, I think marriage is a contract between sentient individuals who wish to spend the rest of their lives in each other’s company. It is a life-long romantic relationship that is agreed to end at death.

What gives you the right to tell him he can’t have 3 wives? In YOUR world NOTHING! You wanna throw out the defination of marriage to whatever “alternative lifestyle” flavor of the month is. You’re jumping up and down at the state tellin ya, a marriage is a man and a woman, so I guess we can count on you to sit idle when the polygamist lobby starts making noise to get them a license.

I think we ought to give a close look at our anti-polygamy laws. I think they’re unconstitutional. If three women and a man want to get married, so be it. If we’re going to have laws about marriage, then they need to be considered as well.

The whole thing is :whacky:

You know, to amuse my friends, I sometimes link them to these forums. They think you hate gay people, you hate Muslims, you hate liberals, you’re obsessed with sex, and you are religiously obsessed zealots. I tell my friends that they’re wrong and that you people are good and not hateful. But in threads like this, it’s really hard for me to make that argument. Let me explain:

Banning gay marriage doesn’t protect marriage. It won’t in any way contribute to decreasing the divorce rate, juvenile delinquency, or any other issue. What it does do is make people like my friends (many of whom are gay) feel alienated, misunderstood, caricatured, betrayed, and left out of the American dream.

Personally? I think they have good reason to feel that way, considering the responses here.

 

[ultimate_ed]

Ew. Bad. It is never the place of ANYONE or ANYTHING to do the will of anyone, right or wrong.

That much I must agree with. Slavery was once the will of the people. That doesn’t mean it was right or that the government should enforce such a view. It is not a good argument to say they government must always do what the majority wants, right or wrong. That’s anarchy and you don’t need government for that. Government exists to protect rights.

That said, right now, everyone in this country has the equal right to marry one person of the opposite sex who is of legal age and not closely related to them. Marriage exists primarily as a social and legal structure for the purpose of propagating our species and creating an stable environment in which to raise families.

If you’re going to break the basic definition of marriage to allow an EXCEPTION for homosexuals, then it become logically difficult to deny other exceptions based on age, quantity or closeness of relationship.

I know of now state that allows a brother and sister to marry. (and if there is, let me know). If you have two gay men who are brothers, do you allow them to marry because they are gay men, or do you deny them because they are too closely related?

What about two men who aren’t gay? What if they want to “marry” simply because they are friends and one has good insurance benefits from his company and wants to share them?

What if, when my father passes, I want to “marry” my mother so that my company is then required to provide health coverage for her?

Do we only call it a “marriage” when the people involved desire some form of sexual contact with each other? Is that discrimination?

There are a lot of aspects to this issue that I fear many have not really given enough thought to.

 

[estesbob]

90% of the USA population did not support the decision made in Loving Vs Virginia. That was the case that allowed interracial marriage. The entire religious community and the majority of the population were on the “wrong side”. More numbers does not mean more value.

Please provide a cite for your 90% figure.

Again claiming that the being African American and engaging in sodomy are similar is patent;y racist.

 

[estesbob]

You know, to amuse my friends, I sometimes link them to these forums. They think you hate gay people, you hate Muslims, you hate liberals, you’re obsessed with sex, and you are religiously obsessed zealots. I tell my friends that they’re wrong and that you people are good and not hateful. But in threads like this, it’s really hard for me to make that argument. Let me explain:

e.

People who are living in sin for some reason take great amusement in mocking those who try to follow the teachings of the Church.

 

[LRThunder]

90% of the USA population did not support the decision made in Loving Vs Virginia. That was the case that allowed interracial marriage. The entire religious community and the majority of the population were on the “wrong side”. More numbers does not mean more value.

Apples and oranges. Interracial marriage was just one part of the Civil Rights Movement and it didn’t pervert the meaning of marriage. Some racists might have claimed it did, but since it was still between a man and woman, they were wrong.

 

[LRThunder]

I am afraid of democracy when the many rise up to diminish the rights of the few. Democracy is a great thing, to be sure, but one that must be measured and cared for. Part of this democracy includes protecting ALL people from tyranny and guaranteeing the rights of every single American.

But not to the point of the minority dictating to the majority. That’s an oligarchy or a dictatorship.

Besides, was the Supreme Court looking out for the minority in Dred Scot or Plessy vs Ferguson? I don’t think so.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ew. Bad. It is never the place of ANYONE or ANYTHING to do the will of anyone, right or wrong.

Pardon me for saying it poorly. The state has the POWER to do the will of the people, right or wrong. It also has the power to thwart the will of the people. The more it does the latter, particularly when, in doing so, it enshrines notions that are contrary to peoples’ sense of what is natural and reasonable, it encourages disrespect for itself and for the law.

Never in history has any significant society understood marriage as being the union of homosexuals. Rulings like the Cal ruling show a profound contempt for the natural instincts of the people; the almost universally held concepts of right, wrong and what is socially important. Courts, of late, have been inclined to do that. It is a vanity the elites indulge in, more and more. Like spendthrift heirs, they squander, for the sake of their own vanity, the painstakingly built fabric of society; a fabric that is a good deal more delicate than they seem to suppose.

Most societies, for ages, have considered marriage something worthy of reverence; something that transcends the merely contractual. For courts to sully it by mandating that it be extended to sexual perversion shows total contempt for the natural inclinations of people throughout ages. It shows total contempt for religion, virtually every one of which has attributed some level of sacredness to marriage and holds sexual perversion to be objectively wrong. It is not at all wise on the part of governmental functionaries to spit on those things generally revered by the populace. It encourages return contempt and erodes that tenuous compliance that holds societies together.
Ultimately, governments which are in the habit of doing that must increasingly rely on force to ensure compliance with anything at all.

 

[Penny_Plain]

But not to the point of the minority dictating to the majority. That’s an oligarchy or a dictatorship.

Besides, was the Supreme Court looking out for the minority in Dred Scot or Plessy vs Ferguson? I don’t think so.

Is somebody making you marry another man?

Are Dred Scott or Plessy still good law?

 

[Exalt]

People who are living in sin for some reason take great amusement in mocking those who try to follow the teachings of the Church.

When my friends see these forums and read the posts here, they see something totally alien to them. They live in an open culture that doesn’t feel threatened by other viewpoints. Some of my friends are even personally opposed to homosexuality, but think it’s quite silly to suggest that the family Sally and Jane are raising across the street has any negative impact on them. What is so strange to my friends isn’t that you are opposed to sin in your own lives. What’s really strange to them is that you feel that opinions contrary or counter to Church teaching are a threat. You’re anti-gay marriage not because you care about what Sally and Jane do in their household - you’re anti-gay marriage because the *idea *behind it is a threat to you. You don’t want other people to believe that homosexuality is okay. It’s the *idea that homosexuality is not immoral *that you’re fighting against. It’s that idea that you see as a threat.

You fight for your Church’s condemnation of homosexuality. But the Church’s opinions on homosexuality have no place in a secular government. That’s right there in the establishment clause.

 

[estesbob]

When my friends see these forums and read the posts here, they see something totally alien to them. They live in an open culture that doesn’t feel threatened by other viewpoints. Some of my friends are even personally opposed to homosexuality, but think it’s quite silly to suggest that the family Sally and Jane are raising across the street has any negative impact on them. What is so strange to my friends isn’t that you are opposed to sin in your own lives. What’s really strange to them is that you feel that opinions contrary or counter to Church teaching are a threat. You’re anti-gay marriage not because you care about what Sally and Jane do in their household - you’re anti-gay marriage because the *idea *behind it is a threat to you. You don’t want other people to believe that homosexuality is okay. It’s the *idea that homosexuality is not immoral *that you’re fighting against. It’s that idea that you see as a threat.

You fight for your Church’s condemnation of homosexuality. But the Church’s opinions on homosexuality have no place in a secular government. That’s right there in the establishment clause.

I oppose homosexual marriage becuase it is an attempt to legitimize grevious.sin As far as opposing homosexual marriage I am in good company:

reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSL1627550020080516?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true