Solution to Gay Marriage issue

[PINski1015]

Get the federal and state governments out of the marriage business.


Let the LGBT community lobby churches and find a church that will sanction gay marriage. Than everybody is happy and there is no further government imposing its will.

 

[starbreather]

That's way to simple, but why use the term lobby there is enough BS associated with that word.

 

[jd4320t]

The better solution is people mind their own business and stop forcing their beliefs on others.

 

[45calibre]

The better solution is people mind their own business and stop forcing their beliefs on others.

winnar!

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Get the federal and state governments out of the marriage business.


Let the LGBT community lobby churches and find a church that will sanction gay marriage. Than everybody is happy and there is no further government imposing its will.

I am all for that. Would never happen now that so much is tied in with marriage like insurance, retirement, social security, etc.

I still am not sure why the word marriage is so sacred to the religious folk, straighr atheists can get married right now, wouldnt you want to stop that too. I mean if marriage is a religious thing and all.

 

[IndyGunner]

Two reasons... insurance and taxes. I have many gay friends, but none of them desire to be anywhere near a church. I wonder why?

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

The better solution is people mind their own business and stop forcing their beliefs on others.

If you spend any time on here you will quickly realize that a segment of the ingo poplation wants the govt to leave them alone until its something they dont like or agree with. Funny how that works.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I am all for that. Would never happen now that so much is tied in with marriage like insurance, retirement, social security, etc.

I still am not sure why the word marriage is so sacred to the religious folk, straighr atheists can get married right now, wouldnt you want to stop that too. I mean if marriage is a religious thing and all.

Who says it is a matter of considering a word sacred? How about the implications of the .gov being able to redefine words? How is that going to work out for Constitutional law? How about contracts? How about something as pedestrian as general communication. As soon as you permit the political redefinition of words that have been stable for centuries if not millennia, you have opened the door to all kinds of things I, for one, don't want to have to deal with. I would think anyone on this forum could understand this after all the hell we have had legally with assorted morons trying to argue that the Second Amendment refers to the National Guard having a right to arms, not the people. What about the ObamaCare penalty that is a tax but isn't treated as a tax because it isn't a tax--it's a penalty but it is constitutional because it is a tax? Now, are you absolutely sure you want the .gov redefining the English language?

 

[shibumiseeker]

Who says it is a matter of considering a word sacred? How about the implications of the .gov being able to redefine words? How is that going to work out for Constitutional law? How about contracts? How about something as pedestrian as general communication. As soon as you permit the political redefinition of words that have been stable for centuries if not millennia, you have opened the door to all kinds of things I, for one, don't want to have to deal with. I would think anyone on this forum could understand this after all the hell we have had legally with assorted morons trying to argue that the Second Amendment refers to the National Guard having a right to arms, not the people. What about the ObamaCare penalty that is a tax but isn't treated as a tax because it isn't a tax--it's a penalty but it is constitutional because it is a tax? Now, are you absolutely sure you want the .gov redefining the English language?

Well that escalated quickly.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well that escalated quickly.

I find it frightening that some are convinced that the entirety of the opposition comes from having one's rear superglued to a pew. The underlying principles involved are potentially far more dangerous. I also find it suspect that the radical homos aren't at all willing to settle for equal treatment before teh law but insist on redefining the word 'marriage'. It would seem to be their quest for forcing acceptance rather that mere tolerance of their choices, much in the same way they expect public schools to be mouthpieces for their cause. Also, their leaders would not be able to get traction without some unattainable goal to be offended with, much like the Jacksons and Sharptons would be out of a job if people started getting along. That said, if part of language is negotiable, then all of it is, and that offers the perfect vehicle for eliminating our rights not be repealing, infringing, or amending the Constitution, but simply be redefining them to the point that they are of no practical value. I really don't care if two men want to both bugger each other and pool their worldly resources and responsibilities. I do care that they are insisting on opening the door on a pandora's box of completely unlimited government through eliminating the absolute value of language.

 

[Denny347]

 

[IndyGal65]

"Radical homos"? Nice. Also, didn't realize that if me and my gal of 22 years wanted to tie the knot that we could be opening a "pandoras box.". Scary folk we are.

 

[Lex Concord]

Well that escalated quickly.

...which is rare in these parts.

 

[hondatech2k2]

I look at it this way..... what impact on me/my family does "gay marriage" play? Absolutely none. I am not sure why "gay marriage" is even a case for debate?!? I mean, don't we have bigger things to worry about like, The Federal Reserve, our growing debt, corruption....the list could go on. So why...why...why does gay marriage continue to be such a hot topic? I don't know... Why can't everyone be happy and miserable (yay married life!!) like the rest of us?

 

[Roadie]

 

[sepe]

I say if gay couples want to be as miserable as straight married couples, let them...except for the fact that most gay couples I've known have seemed to be much better at picking a partner than the majority of straight couples I've known.

 

[churchmouse]

I say if gay couples want to be as miserable as straight married couples, let them...except for the fact that most gay couples I've known have seemed to be much better at picking a partner than the majority of straight couples I've known.

Yup............

 

[IndyDave1776]

"Radical homos"? Nice. Also, didn't realize that if me and my gal of 22 years wanted to tie the knot that we could be opening a "pandoras box.". Scary folk we are.

You missed my point. The pandora's box has nothing to do with anyone's personal choices, commitments, or availability of contractual living arrangements. Redefinition of language does, as we have already seen much mischief in legislation and litigation. Sorry about the insult, my thoughts were redirected toward that segment of the homosexual community analogous with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton which will not be happy in the absence of a fight and insist that they have the right to infringe as far the other way as those who would control what others do privately. I will bypass the implications of the battle over education since it would be a huge distraction from my point regarding the dangers of redefining language. As for the practical issue of marriage, I would remove government from the equation beyond providing a vehicle for domestic contract law that would apply to any/all who wish to pool their worldly rights/responsibilities/property/liabilities. I will freely state that I strongly disapprove of homosexuality, but find it far more important that a significant foundation of limited government is the right to be left alone as you make your own choices. At the end of the day, the real problem here is government overreach and some overheated political activism from at least two different segments. I would argue that neither side can claim a right to government condemnation or imprimatur on personal decisions. This would include using public schools as platforms to teach children an alternative system of morality conflicting with their parents (i.e., Heather has Two Mommies is OK, but if you say 'Jesus Christ' you had better be swearing). That simply is not the job of the .gov, but I am engaging in the very detour I said I was going to avoid.

1. People are entitled to their own choices and should be free to engage in contractual domestic arrangements of their choosing.
2. No one of any political, ethnic, religious, or other identity has a right to redefine language, especially when that can be used as a tool to undermine any type of law, especially constitutional rights and contracts.
3. We have a problem in the form of those on both sides of the fence who would claim liberty for themselves only and a right to re-educate those who disagree.

 

[tv1217]

I dunno why it's such a big deal. As far as I can figure out, the problem people have with gay marriage is not realizing that religious marriage and legal marriage are two different things. Generally when people get married, they actually do it in two ways, once in the form of a marriage license to get the legal benefits and again in their house of worship under their deity(ies). People do one and not the other all the time. Most of the gays are fighting for the legal rights.

If two dudes or two chicks want to legally bind themselves to each other, what's the big deal?

 

[IndyGal65]

"Radical homos"? Nice. Also, didn't realize that if me and my gal of 22 years wanted to tie the knot that we could be opening a "pandoras box.". Scary folk we are.

I say if gay couples want to be as miserable as straight married couples, let them...except for the fact that most gay couples I've known have seemed to be much better at picking a partner than the majority of straight couples I've known.