2A advocates agaist gay marriage, hypocrites?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    dross

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2009
    8,699
    48
    Monument, CO
    The ideal is that government recognizes and enforces contracts.

    Marriage is a social construct and in some cases a religious ceremony, and also a contract. I'd prefer the government ignore all aspects except the contract.

    Since that is not the situation, I think that the government should extend the same to all citizens. There is a significant faction of our citizens who fall in love with members of the same sex. The government should be neutral on that fact. Since it is not, it should at least recognize same sex marriages on an equal level to hetero marriages.

    I would prefer that government got completely out of the marriage game.
     

    88GT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 29, 2010
    16,643
    83
    Familyfriendlyville
    The ideal is that government recognizes and enforces contracts.

    Marriage is a social construct and in some cases a religious ceremony, and also a contract. I'd prefer the government ignore all aspects except the contract.

    Since that is not the situation, I think that the government should extend the same to all citizens. There is a significant faction of our citizens who fall in love with members of the same sex. The government should be neutral on that fact. Since it is not, it should at least recognize same sex marriages on an equal level to hetero marriages.

    I would prefer that government got completely out of the marriage game.

    Somebody beat you to the contract angle. ;)
     

    Bunnykid68

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Mar 2, 2010
    23,515
    83
    Cave of Caerbannog
    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. :rolleyes:)

    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?

    Damnit woman, there you go making sense again, knock it off and fix me a sammich or at least fix your hubby a sammich, he must be starving by now :D
     

    Degtyaryov

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 12, 2013
    322
    18
    I've never understood the opposition by self proclaimed advocates of liberty who want to deny rights to others simply because they don't like them or think they're icky. Freedom across the board, I say.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    --There is no separation of church and state doctrine. This is simply a figment of 20th century progressives' imaginations that surprisingly so many "pro-liberty" people latch onto.

    --There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits homosexuals from associating in any manner they prefer.

    --When one person comments on a picture that another posted on a "publicly accessible" site, it makes them no less anti 1A than the ones that posted the photo.

    --The federal government does not have the authority to force the acceptance the sexual proclivities of one group of people by another.

    Nor does it have the authority to forcibly preclude that acceptance, provided we're discussing adult humans (and only adult humans) giving lawful consent.

    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.

    I would concur with this assessment.

    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.

    True, however it's probably discriminatory to say that to achieve the goal that this couple wishes, they must go through an additional set of legal paperwork and mumbo-jumbo, but that couple just has to file for a license and see a JP in chambers.

    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.

    The immigration issue would be solved by ending the entitlements or by paying into the system for __ years before one is eligible to take from it.

    As for the 2A issues, especially today, when we need all the friends we can find, we should be welcoming the efforts of such groups as the Pink Pistols.

    The 2A is a Right and part of what this country was founded on.

    2A advocates are looking out for everyone in respect to the 2A, they are not out looking for the next corn hole that needs filling......

    Pathetic. Gap-toothed, inbred, uncle-daddied, sister-mommaed, uneducated whip-crackered, disgustingly, contemptuously pathetic.

    Freedom. It means just what it says.

    unless of course my Freedom to feel gays are disgusting doesnt agree with your Freedom.......then i am just a sack of Mother F'ers and shouldnt be allowed an opinion......

    *sigh* I was so hoping that this thread wouldn't require me to put on the mod hat. This is your in-thread warning. Further rules violations will result in vacations, at a minimum. :mods:

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,294
    113
    Martinsville
    The immigration issue would be solved by ending the entitlements or by paying into the system for __ years before one is eligible to take from it.

    As for the 2A issues, especially today, when we need all the friends we can find, we should be welcoming the efforts of such groups as the Pink Pistols.

    I think you got confused on what I meant.

    A same sex couple married outside of the US. One of them has to immigrate for job reasons, or they're already a citizen and their partner isn't yet. As of currently, they would not be able to bring the other over with them.

    Currently only immigration exceptions for marriages apply to straight couples.
     

    mdmayo

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Feb 4, 2013
    695
    28
    Madison County
    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.

    I disagree with the interpretation of The Danbury Letters that asserts there is no separation of church and state doctrine, I will only say that is not the only interpretation. For that self-same reason, I agree with you BlackHat that the government has no authority to dictate that any religious institution must consecrate a same sex union.

    However; Freedom of Religion is also equally Freedom from Religion, therefore; disallowing same sex unions founded on religious belief is unconstitutional.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    I think you got confused on what I meant.

    A same sex couple married outside of the US. One of them has to immigrate for job reasons, or they're already a citizen and their partner isn't yet. As of currently, they would not be able to bring the other over with them.

    Currently only immigration exceptions for marriages apply to straight couples.

    You're correct, I didn't understand your meaning. I do now, and agree with you. I had thought you meant that gov't needed to recognize *whatever*, with an example of why being that people are recognized as citizens or they are not.

    Thanks for explaining your point! :)

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    Compatriot G

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 25, 2010
    889
    28
    New Castle
    I think we have strayed some from the OP's question. The question was, is it hypocritical to support the 2nd Amendment, yet oppose homosexual marriage?

    I am a Christian. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. To further narrow things down, I am an Independent, Fundamental Baptist.

    I believe God instituted marriage in Genesis. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Jesus reaffirmed this in the Gospels when He was having a conversation with the Pharisees concerning divorce.

    In the Old Testament, homosexuality was called an abomination and it was a death-penalty offense under the Mosaic Law. In the New Testament, Paul wrote in the first chapter of Romans that homosexuality was unnatural and was still considered an abomination.

    In the Old Testament, self-defense was a part of the Mosaic Law. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus said if you didn't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

    As a Christian, I have a duty to obey the laws of the land where I live. However, if those laws conflict with God's laws, then I need to follow God.

    The Second Amendment does not conflict with God's laws. Homosexuality and homosexual marriage are both in conflict with God's laws. Therefore, I must oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

    Does this make me a bigoted, homophobic hypocrite? In man's eyes, perhaps it does. However, my duty is to God, not to man.
     

    88GT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 29, 2010
    16,643
    83
    Familyfriendlyville
    I think we have strayed some from the OP's question. The question was, is it hypocritical to support the 2nd Amendment, yet oppose homosexual marriage?

    I am a Christian. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. To further narrow things down, I am an Independent, Fundamental Baptist.

    I believe God instituted marriage in Genesis. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Jesus reaffirmed this in the Gospels when He was having a conversation with the Pharisees concerning divorce.

    In the Old Testament, homosexuality was called an abomination and it was a death-penalty offense under the Mosaic Law. In the New Testament, Paul wrote in the first chapter of Romans that homosexuality was unnatural and was still considered an abomination.

    In the Old Testament, self-defense was a part of the Mosaic Law. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus said if you didn't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

    As a Christian, I have a duty to obey the laws of the land where I live. However, if those laws conflict with God's laws, then I need to follow God.

    The Second Amendment does not conflict with God's laws. Homosexuality and homosexual marriage are both in conflict with God's laws. Therefore, I must oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

    Does this make me a bigoted, homophobic hypocrite? In man's eyes, perhaps it does. However, my duty is to God, not to man.

    For yourself. Where in the Bible does it say that you have to coerce others to walk the same path?

    We are not a Christian nation is as much as we are not a theocracy that exists to advance Christianity. Our foundation in Christianity explains a lot, but it doesn't give us permission to violate the tenets of freedom in the name of God.
     

    Compatriot G

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 25, 2010
    889
    28
    New Castle
    For yourself. Where in the Bible does it say that you have to coerce others to walk the same path?

    We are not a Christian nation is as much as we are not a theocracy that exists to advance Christianity. Our foundation in Christianity explains a lot, but it doesn't give us permission to violate the tenets of freedom in the name of God.

    Let me be clear on this matter. I understand the homosexual marriage debate from a secular point of view. From a secular point of view, it makes some sense.

    I look at this like I look at abortion. I believe abortion is wrong, even though the Supreme Court has declared it to be legal. If the Supreme Court rules in such a way that "legalizes" homosexual marriage, then I will still believe it is wrong.
     

    CathyInBlue

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    I believe God instituted marriage in Genesis.
    So, there was no marriage on planet Earth before someone wrote down Genesis? I'm sure all of those ancient civilizations like Sumeria and Babylonia, as well as modern pagan and polytheistic cultures, will be heart broken to learn that all of their marriages are invalid. Not to mention that even since Genesis, there have been lots of "Biblical" conceptions of marriage that would now be considered criminal in nature. A man a woman, and her hand maid. A man and his many slaves captured in war.

    When you start mixing civil law and religious law, nothing good or beneficial for a society or culture can come from it. Best to get government out of the marriage business altogether and if any two (or more) consenting adults decide among themselves to consider themselves to be married, then there should be no legal means whereby anyone else can dispute it. That would keep all of the religions out of each others' hair.
     

    mdmayo

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Feb 4, 2013
    695
    28
    Madison County
    To be clear; Yes it is in my eyes hypocritical to be pro 2A and not to support equal rights for same sex unions under law.

    Marriage is a religious term, and the right of Freedom of Religion precludes the government from forcing a religion to perform same sex marriages.
     

    88GT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 29, 2010
    16,643
    83
    Familyfriendlyville
    Let me be clear on this matter. I understand the homosexual marriage debate from a secular point of view. From a secular point of view, it makes some sense.

    I look at this like I look at abortion. I believe abortion is wrong, even though the Supreme Court has declared it to be legal. If the Supreme Court rules in such a way that "legalizes" homosexual marriage, then I will still believe it is wrong.

    That doesn't address my question. There are a lot of things I oppose from a moral standpoint (religious or not), but don't believe government has jurisdiction to control those behaviors.

    Your post implied that your opposition to something (in this case gay marriage) translated into favor for the government controlling it to satisfy your moral code. Is this the case? Do you support legislation denying contractual equality?
     

    88GT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 29, 2010
    16,643
    83
    Familyfriendlyville
    So, there was no marriage on planet Earth before someone wrote down Genesis? I'm sure all of those ancient civilizations like Sumeria and Babylonia, as well as modern pagan and polytheistic cultures, will be heart broken to learn that all of their marriages are invalid. Not to mention that even since Genesis, there have been lots of "Biblical" conceptions of marriage that would now be considered criminal in nature. A man a woman, and her hand maid. A man and his many slaves captured in war.

    Considering that the Sumerians and Babylonians do not pre-date the Israelites, the answer could very well be yes. ;)
     

    bakeman

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 14, 2012
    119
    18
    Linton, IN
    I think we have strayed some from the OP's question. The question was, is it hypocritical to support the 2nd Amendment, yet oppose homosexual marriage?

    I am a Christian. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. To further narrow things down, I am an Independent, Fundamental Baptist.

    I believe God instituted marriage in Genesis. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Jesus reaffirmed this in the Gospels when He was having a conversation with the Pharisees concerning divorce.

    In the Old Testament, homosexuality was called an abomination and it was a death-penalty offense under the Mosaic Law. In the New Testament, Paul wrote in the first chapter of Romans that homosexuality was unnatural and was still considered an abomination.

    In the Old Testament, self-defense was a part of the Mosaic Law. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus said if you didn't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

    As a Christian, I have a duty to obey the laws of the land where I live. However, if those laws conflict with God's laws, then I need to follow God.

    The Second Amendment does not conflict with God's laws. Homosexuality and homosexual marriage are both in conflict with God's laws. Therefore, I must oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

    Does this make me a bigoted, homophobic hypocrite? In man's eyes, perhaps it does. However, my duty is to God, not to man.


    :yesway: Me too. What church assembly do you attend?
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom