Solution to Gay Marriage issue

[mdeshon]

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

 

[level.eleven]

And the majority of the repub party doesn't on this issue. There are over 200 people in my church. If I stood tomorrow and asked how many are voting Romney and how many want to ban gay marriage, I bet 90% of the hands would go up and they'd all be the same hands.

Dominionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[foszoe]

A clue bat won't fix these people. They're so comfortable in their majority positions, they don't realize they're building he weapons that will one day be used on them.

We didn't get in the hole we're in overnight and we won't dig out of it overnight. You were willing to change your ideas and while I may not appear to be in the contexts of my responses, I tend to hold libertarian views on most things. Change a couple of people's opinions a little bit each day and let the seeds grow. Thats my but I think the third party movement whether its libertarian or otherwise is growing and thats good for the country.

 

[churchmouse]

Again, the best solution is to get the government out of marriage altogether. How many repubs are onboard with that vs demanding the government be in the marriage business?

I am a conservative but I do not want the Gov. telling me or anyone else who and when on many issues this included. Just because a person leans towards a republican point of view does not lump them in with folks such as you continually describe and call out on such things. Conservative, not controlling. Gov. is to deep in our business now. JMHO

 

[Yup!]

And the majority of the repub party doesn't on this issue. There are over 200 people in my church. If I stood tomorrow and asked how many are voting Romney and how many want to ban gay marriage, I bet 90% of the hands would go up and they'd all be the same hands.

There is a whole camp of people who want to ban gay marriage, and have no real ties to religion as their basis.

Like you admitted a post or two ago, you've flipped flopped on this issue, granted no one else is able to get educated on a subject and change their mind, but I digress. You've flipped flopped, and suddenly support something that at one point in your life you disagreed with.

The real reason I hit reply though is because there is a camp that believes that the family unit, consists of 1 mother, 1 father and children. Anything outside of that is somewhat "dysfunctional' Some variances are more socially acceptable, i.e. being a widow, and now even divorce. Granted those single parent households will raise a child differently than the traditional man and woman household. When you start adding gay couple raising children it added a whole different level of influence to a new generation.

If the divorce rate was closer to 5% than 50%, this camp might have a better argument, perhaps 100 years ago, they did. As the culture has changed, many things like divorce, multiple marriages, multiple moms with children from multiple dads, gay couples raising children. These are now becoming more main stream, and whats in store for our evolution as a culture.

So regardless of the definition, or even if people are married, and regardless of what the church teaches, there are many who would like to protect the family concept for the sake of society.

Based on the divorce statistics, you could make an assumption that the half that isn't getting divorced make some strong sacrifices to keep their family together, and therefore would prefer to live in a society that values others who have done the same.

As communities define who they are, many of these people will likely seek out communities of like minded individuals because birds of a feather tend to flock together.

 

[thebishopp]

Dominionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting link. I think we see it in action quite often though I think we see it most with Christianity because that is the dominant (no pun intended) religion here in the U.S.

 

[hornadylnl]

There is a whole camp of people who want to ban gay marriage, and have to real ties to religion as their basis.

Like you admitted a post or two ago, you've flipped flopped on this issue, granted no one else is able to get educated on a subject and change their mind, but I digress. You've flipped flopped, and suddenly support something that at one point in your life you disagreed with.

The real reason I hit reply though is because there is a camp that believes that the family unit, consists of 1 mother, 1 father and children. Anything outside of that is somewhat "dysfunctional' Some variances are more socially acceptable, i.e. being a widow, and now even divorce. Granted those single parent households will raise a child differently than the traditional man and woman household. When you start adding gay couple raising children it added a whole different level of influence to a new generation.

If the divorce rate was closer to 5% than 50%, this camp might have a better argument, perhaps 100 years ago, they did. As the culture has changed, many things like divorce, multiple marriages, multiple moms with children from multiple dads, gay couples raising children. These are now becoming more main stream, and whats in store for our evolution as a culture.

So regardless of the definition, or even if people are married, and regardless of what the church teaches, there are many who would like to protect the family concept for the sake of society.

Based on the divorce statistics, you could make an assumption that the half that isn't getting divorced make some strong sacrifices to keep their family together, and therefore would prefer to live in a society that values others who have done the same.

As communities define who they are, many of these people will likely seek out communities of like minded individuals because birds of a feather tend to flock together.

As long as my beliefs are moving towards liberty, I'll gladly wear the name Flip Flopper.

 

[Yup!]

As long as my beliefs are moving towards liberty, I'll gladly wear the name Flip Flopper.

Romney's new stance on the second amendment is moving towards liberty.

 

[hornadylnl]

Romney's new stance on the second amendment is moving towards liberty.

How many revolutions is he on now?

 

[TheRude1]

How about using the Constitution ?

10th Amendment already covers this, Guessen most of you know that one

If you don't like the laws of a state you have the freedom to MOVE
And if you like the laws of a state you have the freedom to MOVE
See how easy that is

Should we screw with the meanings of any of these words ? "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" ?

 

[thebishopp]

You're confusing the rights guaranteed by the constituion with those retained by the states and the people.

By its omission, the constitution, places the decision to embrace the right to homosexual, polygamy, beastiality, or whatever marriage you support to the states and the people. What you state as fact, period, is not the way the country was set up. There was latitude given to the states to govern themselves as they see fit, as long as the rights outlined in the constitution weren't infringed, treated equally under their laws, etc.

(as I understand it).

The rights outlined in the constitution are not are "only" protected rights.

In addition to the Constitution there is another often over looked document. The Declaration of Independence. Where in it was declared:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

----------

The bill of rights was created (at least according to the many writings of those founding fathers involved in it) as a means to restrict the government's ability to infringe upon our "inalienable rights". Of which "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are included (it says so right in our Declaration of Independence).

Again as it was stated by one of our founders:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Jefferson.

Besides Jefferson many of our other founders felt quite strongly about personal liberties and shared the same opinion.

It would seem that based on your argument, because the Constitution doesn't specifically name certain things then I am free to gain enough support to influence the government (at least at a state or local level) to pass laws which infringe upon others' rightful liberties even though their actions "neither pick my pocket nor break my leg".

 

[Yup!]

The rights outlined in the constitution are not are "only" protected rights.

In addition to the Constitution there is another often over looked document. The Declaration of Independence. Where in it was declared:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

----------

The bill of rights was created (at least according to the many writings of those founding fathers involved in it) as a means to restrict the government's ability to infringe upon our "inalienable rights". Of which "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are included (it says so right in our Declaration of Independence).

Again as it was stated by one of our founders:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Jefferson.

Besides Jefferson many of our other founders felt quite strongly about personal liberties and shared the same opinion.

It would seem that based on your argument, because the Constitution doesn't specifically name certain things then I am free to gain enough support to influence the government (at least at a state or local level) to pass laws which infringe upon others' rightful liberties even though their actions "neither pick my pocket nor break my leg".

It makes me happy to steal things.
It makes me happy to kill people
It makes me happy to lie to people to get my may.
It makes me happy to set my house on fire instead of selling it.
It makes me happy to drive 125 MPH

Perhaps we should remove and redefine any laws that prevent me from being happy!

 

[thebishopp]

It makes me happy to steal things.
It makes me happy to kill people
It makes me happy to lie to people to get my may.
It makes me happy to set my house on fire instead of selling it.
It makes me happy to drive 125 MPH

Perhaps we should remove and redefine any laws that prevent me from being happy!

Now you are just trolling. Perhaps I need to restore my old sig line.

As I quoted.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

We are free to pursue our happiness (rightful liberty) as long as our actions are within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

Note only the 1st 2 of your "makes me happy" are actual actions which would extend pass the limits drawn about you by the equal rights of others.

 

[Yup!]

Now you are just trolling. Perhaps I need to restore my old sig line.

As I quoted.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

We are free to pursue our happiness (rightful liberty) as long as our actions are within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

Note only the 1st 2 of your "makes me happy" are actual actions which would extend pass the limits drawn about you by the equal rights of others.

Some would argue, that your right to happiness, (gay couples raising children and getting married) interferes with my right to be happy, and it's a danger to our society, perhaps equally as dangerous as some of my list.

Those who are against gay marriage surely are unhappy about it, and their unhappiness is clearly brought in, by someone else's desire to be happy.

Not trolling, debating.

 

[thebishopp]

A clue bat won't fix these people. They're so comfortable in their majority positions, they don't realize they're building he weapons that will one day be used on them.

Actually I think it is more like that they don't think they will ever see that day. They are in the majority position and do not plan to ever be in the minority position.

You can bet that if it ever shifted in their lifetime we would hear no end of the complaining and talk about their "freedoms" being infringed.

 

[Loco179]

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.

Thank you! You said this so well.

 

[Apistoman]

I don't know. Why don't we just let health benefits apply to an employee, dependent children and one specifically named other adult. Nothing to do with marriage. WHOEVER they choose, for what ever reason. That removes the whole marriage issue out of the "state's" hand and gives it back to the church. Of course it deflates the whole LGBT equality issue too.

 

[hornadylnl]

I don't know. Why don't we just let health benefits apply to an employee, dependent children and one specifically named other adult. Nothing to do with marriage. WHOEVER they choose, for what ever reason. That removes the whole marriage issue out of the "state's" hand and gives it back to the church. Of course it deflates the whole LGBT equality issue too.

It should be the employer's decision if they want to offer benefits to same sex partners. The market will make that decision.

 

[thebishopp]

Some would argue, that your right to happiness, (gay couples raising children and getting married) interferes with my right to be happy, and it's a danger to our society, perhaps equally as dangerous as some of my list.

Those who are against gay marriage surely are unhappy about it, and their unhappiness is clearly brought in, by someone else's desire to be happy.

Not trolling, debating.

And if their getting married "picks your pocket or breaks your leg" then you would be correct.

The "damage" to you must be "real" and not just "it offends my conscience or religious viewpoints".

Much like how one can't be arrested walking down the street "OCing" (here in Indiana) just because someone "feels" afraid when they see it.

Now if you have a rule in your particular religion that says "no gay marriage" then that's fine and if anyone in your club doesn't want to support that rule then you kick them out... but again, it is not for the government to pass laws which infringe upon our rightful liberties.

 

[foszoe]

It should be the employer's decision if they want to offer benefits to same sex partners. The market will make that decision.

I am sure you meant it should be the employer's decision if they want to offer benefits to partners as the sex of the partner shouldn't matter should it?

Employers shouldn't have to offer benefits to anyone should they? It should be completely market driven.