2A advocates agaist gay marriage, hypocrites?

[HmDBrian]

Nobody should have the right to tell you who you an and cannot marry. Im not a fan of gays, but that dont mean they cant live a normal life like me and my wife or you and your wife or husband. I feel bad for the people who have been brainwashed to think being gay is so bad.

 

[theblackhat]

If one examines the issue from a purely constitutional viewpoint, as dictated by separation of church and state doctrine, all "marriages" are civil unions

Has anybody here really looked at the origins of the church and state argument? Jefferson stated this in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association stating that the government should not interfere with religion.
That said, making a law that allows for gay marriage, I agree wouldn't necessary be an issue. However, when the government dictates that religious institutions MUST allow gay marriage, THEY jump the "wall" of separation.

 

[Mark 1911]

I think the government should stay out of it, it's not their realm of authority.

 

[sumphead]

It is not hypocritical in my opinion to be for the 2A but against gay marriage. It is however hypocritical to be pro 2A and to want gay marriage to be illegal and inforced by any government. In my opinion, of course.

Allow my to simplify. My father used to yell at me as a teenager when I would turn my music up to loudly. He would say, "You have the right to listen to music as loud as you wish. However, you DO NOT have the right to make me listen to it."

As with all rights... I have the right to own firearms. Opposers have the right not to own them.

Marriage is an institution of the church, NOT the government. If your church wishes not to marry two people (as some churches do now, i.e Catholics, if not of the faith) then so be it. But laws don't make the snake handlers stop doing that.

Rights are rights for all, not just the selective.

 

[mrjarrell]

I think the government should stay out of it, it's not their realm of authority.

Unfortunately, they have involved themselves in it for many, many decades and aren't likely to uninvolve themselves. One of the major cases currently before SCOTUS WILL, if decided properly, get the feds out of one aspect of the marriage issue. It could see DOMA overturned and would end their involvement in recognition as one thing or another.

 

[Mark 1911]

Unfortunately, they have involved themselves in it for many, many decades and aren't likely to uninvolve themselves. One of the major cases currently before SCOTUS WILL, if decided properly, get the feds out of one aspect of the marriage issue. It could see DOMA overturned and would end their involvement in recognition as one thing or another.

My response was intentionally abridged. I am pro-second amendment. I am pro first amendment. My own personal belief is that there is no such thing as gay marriage. Trying to legalize gay marriage is like trying to legalize pink giraffes. Neither one exists, and passing a law that says otherwise changes nothing, its a huge waist of energy, not to mention tax dollars.

 

[johnny45]

I can think of at least two things beyond the boundaries of the central state established by the States in the united States Constitution.

One is the infringement of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms.

Another is marriage.

Still, citizens all around the republic continue to plead that the state ignore those boundaries and get involved in the fields beyond.

The state has no place in my arms.
The state has no place in my marriage.

Confine the state to the cage of the Constitution..

 

[Tinner666]

Well, I'm for it if it makes them happy. They're not pushing it on me, nor harming anybody. I won't pust gun ownership on them. BTW, many are Pro2A.

 

[Jarhead77]

Because making everyone happy is important to you? Not hurting anyone? How do you know?

And it is getting pushed on everyone, regardless of whether you are for gay marriages or not. Why is it an issue at all if its not getting pushed on anyone? Or are you referring to the gay relationship? And how do you know it's not getting pushed on anyone? Do you see and know all? See below.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...busted_for_demanding_gay_sex_at_gunpoint.html

 

[Tinner666]

As a homophobe, I've changed my opinion over the last 7-10 years. I paused to look around me and found many gay couple living, for want of another word, normal marriages. Some became gay after normal marriages. Almost all the couples I know have children, or grandchildren that are normal, BION. They even know how the adults live and aren't bothered by it as far as I can tell.
I've decided to live and let live. I'm not gay if you're questioning that too.

 

[mrjarrell]

As a homophobe, I've changed my opinion over the last 7-10 years. I paused to look around me and found many gay couple living, for want of another word, normal marriages. Some became gay after normal marriages. Almost all the couples I know have children, or grandchildren that are normal, BION. They even know how the adults live and aren't bothered by it as far as I can tell.
I've decided to live and let live. I'm not gay if you're questioning that too.

Well, apparently you're going to have it forced on you and you'll have to get divorced and married to a same sex partner, according to someone.

 

[Tinner666]

BTW, the issue as I've had it explained to me boils down to this, more than anything.
If Bob dies, Joe, his partner of 30 years ends up in a legal inheritance suit with offspring, and even exes. This even includes property fights on the house the two bought together. This has been the crux for years.
When I say 'pushing it on me, I mean it like 'hitting' on me for instance. If you hit on me, I'll take it in stride and politely say "No." Keep pushing, and it could become something else.

 

[Jarhead77]

And exactly how is that different than a straight couple?

 

[Tinner666]

Well, apparently you're going to have it forced on you and you'll have to get divorced and married to a same sex partner, according to someone.

I'll let that someone explain it to my wife. I'll sit back and watch the action with popcorn and a drink.

 

[Tinner666]

And exactly how is that different than a straight couple?

That happens a lot too. It gives them legal standing.
I'm not going to parse all the semantics of this. On this issue, I'll go witht the flow and I believe the churches should make the standards. Well, maybe! Leave it to the church, and pediphilia may become 'normal'.
Some churches agree with gay marriage.

 

[phylodog]

BTW, the issue as I've had it explained to me boils down to this, more than anything.
If Bob dies, Joe, his partner of 30 years ends up in a legal inheritance suit with offspring, and even exes. This even includes property fights on the house the two bought together. This has been the crux for years.
When I say 'pushing it on me, I mean it like 'hitting' on me for instance. If you hit on me, I'll take it in stride and politely say "No." Keep pushing, and it could become something else.

Seems like the type of problem which could be avoided by creating a trust. Lots of folks do it for NFA items but they can be used for just about anything.

 

[Tombs]

Why do we "need" the government to recognize anything?

Immigration is quite a big reason.


I guess people have some obsession with polarizing their favorite political issue to the point that they must alienate everyone on the other side who actually would agree with them. (That goes for either 2A or gay marriage supporters)

It's important to remember not to spite some groups just because some politicians pissed you off.

 

[longbarrel]

It's the 3 G's. And in the great state of Indiana, they are very strong.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The overturning of abortion laws and sodomy laws goes against your thoughts.
Those "actions" were outlawed but enough people worked to overturn those laws.
One could argue there are many cases of what some would call legal murder now. .

Abortion laws and sodomy laws were overturned by unelected Judges; not "the people."

 

[88GT]

Why do we "need" the government to recognize anything?

Because a government that doesn't recognize a marriage (in the contractual sense, not the covenantal/religious sense) can't really rule on disputes that arise from that contract.

I just read an article about a couple in AZ who are attempting to get divorced. The "man" was legally recognized (there's that word again! ) as a man in the state of Hawaii when he married the woman (so technically a hetero couple in the eyes of the law). The AZ judge refused to grant the divorce stating that AZ law doesn't recognize their marriage because "he" is really a she. No marriage recognition, no divorce. (It probably is relevant that had it been anybody else there might not have been a reason to know that "he" was a she before becoming a he. But this particular "he" is the one who had to go and make a big deal out of being the first "man" to become pregnant and birth a child. Three times over, in fact. )

This is why the vocabulary is so dang important IMO. THe state doesn't recognize marriages. It recognizes contracts. And in this case, spousal privilege contracts. Who cares who that spouse is?