Solution to Gay Marriage issue

[GBuck]

I disagree with the conjunction. My statements have not said anything about it being detrimental

You have said this whole time that you are bothered by the word marriage being used for homosexual relationships. You have said that "If I said I was married, you used to know that it meant I had a wife." (paraphrased, without changing meaning) You are saying that the whole reason you are against "gay marriage" is the definition of the word marriage. Therefor, one can logically conclude that you think including them in the definition is detrimental to the "institution" of marriage.

 

[GBuck]

And just so you're aware, I probably won't be checking this thread anymore. There's no point in debating someone that can't come up with a better reason to disallow it than, "it's been that way for years."

 

[Yup!]

And just so you're aware, I probably won't be checking this thread anymore. There's no point in debating someone that can't come up with a better reason to disallow it than, "it's been that way for years."

Ya, so can we get back to my question now that he's gone?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...tion_to_gay_marriage_issue-6.html#post3216775

 

[Denny347]

So it's ok for a father to marry his adult daughter?

Gross...yes. Do I care...NO. They are adults and it is their choice.
i don't see that really being a problem. Is there a line of dads/daughters wanting to get married?

 

[Yup!]

Gross...yes. Do I care...NO. They are adults and it is their choice.
i don't see that really being a problem. Is there a line of dads/daughters wanting to get married?

No there isnt a line today. Perhaps 100 years from now there could be, so based on your stance, they can marry, because you don't care, but think its gross.

That's all I was asking, it's helps me see the basis for your support of gay marriage.

 

[hornadylnl]

A word should have a precise identifiable meaning.

Quantify the word few for me. Exactly how many is a few?



There are several here who say they have no problem with civil unions, etc, only calling it marriage. How many of you would choose an anti gay marriage candidate over a pro gay marriage candidate?

Get the government out of the marriage business altogether. There should be no governmental advantages or benefits for married people over non married people. As far as legal issues, the 2 or more adults can have a lawyer draft their wishes, be it wills, living wills, etc.

As far as health insurance and other benefits given to married couples, let the private sector deal with it. Let's say a corporation is looking to hire for an engineering position. Applicant A is in a heterosexual marriage but is less qualified and provides less value than candidate B who is in a homosexual marriage. If candidate B turns down the job because the corp won't give him insurance, the corp loses. They're already paying for insurance for candidate A, why not B?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Quantify the word few for me. Exactly how many is a few?



There are several here who say they have no problem with civil unions, etc, only calling it marriage. How many of you would choose an anti gay marriage candidate over a pro gay marriage candidate?

Get the government out of the marriage business altogether. There should be no governmental advantages or benefits for married people over non married people. As far as legal issues, the 2 or more adults can have a lawyer draft their wishes, be it wills, living wills, etc.

As far as health insurance and other benefits given to married couples, let the private sector deal with it. Let's say a corporation is looking to hire for an engineering position. Applicant A is in a heterosexual marriage but is less qualified and provides less value than candidate B who is in a homosexual marriage. If candidate B turns down the job because the corp won't give him insurance, the corp loses. They're already paying for insurance for candidate A, why not B?

It should be their choice.

Let's take your proposal about letting the private sector deal with it and letting the market decide how to best sort this out---let the states decide for themselves.

If CA, MA, et al, are correct and gay marriage is a panecea for their citizens, they'll soon show the rest of the country and we'll all be running to our legislators and to the polls to follow their lead.

 

[hornadylnl]

It should be their choice.

Let's take your proposal about letting the private sector deal with it and letting the market decide how to best sort this out---let the states decide for themselves.

If CA, MA, et al, are correct and gay marriage is a panecea for their citizens, they'll soon show the rest of the country and we'll all be running to our legislators and to the polls to follow their lead.

Let's see if the party of "small government" ever allows this to happen. Last time I checked, they're still wanting a constitutional amendment to ban it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Let's see if the party of "small government" ever allows this to happen. Last time I checked, they're still wanting a constitutional amendment to ban it.

Yep and a CA is a tall hurdle to jump...it won't happen. So, in the mean time, let the 50-57 (depending on who you ask) laboratories of liberty do their thing. If its a good idea, that works, the market place of ideas will do its magic. And for the citizens of those states that wish to live their lives in a more traditional manner can do so. People that don't like it can vote with their feet and money.

 

[hornadylnl]

Yep and a CA is a tall hurdle to jump...it won't happen. So, in the mean time, let the 50-57 (depending on who you ask) laboratories of liberty do their thing. If its a good idea, that works, the market place of ideas will do its magic. And for the citizens of those states that wish to live their lives in a more traditional manner can do so. People that don't like it can vote with their feet and money.

The voters who support the constitutional amendment are voting for state and federal candidates who will never let gay marriage happen or will never abdicate the government's role in marriage. It's one thing to get on here and say you're ok with civil unions. It's quite another to actually vote that way this November.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The voters who support the constitutional amendment are voting for state and federal candidates who will never let gay marriage happen or will never abdicate the government's role in marriage. It's one thing to get on here and say you're ok with civil unions. It's quite another to actually vote that way this November.

It will happen sooner or later.

And as this will surely come to pass, we will, as time passes, find reason to become tolerant of other deviant (descriptive, not necessarily pejorative) behaviors and customs. Some of which the current supporters of homosexual now scoff at as being straw man arguements.

Entropy is abundant in the universe. I am convinced, without any self restraint, it is abundant in society too.

 

[hornadylnl]

It will happen sooner or later.

And as this will surely come to pass, we will, as time passes, find reason to become tolerant of other deviant (descriptive, not necessarily pejorative) behaviors and customs. Some of which the current supporters of homosexual now scoff at as being straw man arguements.

Entropy is abundant in the universe. I am convinced, without any self restraint, it is abundant in society too.

No doubt. This has all been predicted thousands of years ago. But I've come to realize that forced morality isn't morality at all. Just the same as forced allegiance isn't allegiance at all.

We all need to divorce our religion from our government. We are arming our government with the weapons to bring the force of government on our own necks but we falsely believe it will only be applied to those we disagree with. It's time we figure out if the church is controlling the government or if the government is controlling the church.

 

[Yup!]

The voters who support the constitutional amendment are voting for state and federal candidates who will never let gay marriage happen or will never abdicate the government's role in marriage. It's one thing to get on here and say you're ok with civil unions. It's quite another to actually vote that way this November.

This is just one factor to look at when choosing a president. Each position Should be evaluated on a weighted scale. A vote for a candidate who opposes gay marriage does not equate to someone being against gay marriage. Perhaps the other issues the candidate is in favor of are more important to the voter.

Unless you vote for yourself, you will never vote for a candidate who supports 100% of your ideas.

 

[hornadylnl]

This is just one factor to look at when choosing a president. Each position Should be evaluated on a weighted scale. A vote for a candidate who opposes gay marriage does not equate to someone being against gay marriage. Perhaps the other issues the candidate is in favor of are more important to the voter.

Unless you vote for yourself, you will never vote for a candidate who supports 100% of your ideas.

The majority of voters don't want gay marriage so the majority of candidates cater to that voter base. The desire to control others is a genetic trait. Unfortunately it's a dominant trait and not a recessive one.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The majority of voters don't want gay marriage so the majority of candidates cater to that voter base. The desire to control others is a genetic trait. Unfortunately it's a dominant trait and not a recessive one.

To control one's environment is a genetic trait common to all men, women, children, and all of God's creation. To be able for a group of people to establish a set of rules by which they want to govern their lives is also a part of freedom.

 

[88GT]

, for some reason, they think marriage is a "sacred" thing.

For some people it is.

In early European culture, you only went to the church to get the marriage blessed. But the actual marriage part was over with when you and your partner said, "Hey we're married now."

This is only partially telling the story. Marriage in the Church WAS the only legally recognized marriage. And marriage in the Church wasn't for a blessing, it was a formal statement of the legal relationship that was being established as well as paying homage to the belief that marriage was simultaneously a religious covenant.

Common folk that didn't marry in the Church weren't recognized as married in terms of legal consequences. Incidentally, this is the origination of the concept of common law marriage.

Government has never been not in control of the marriage relationship, but it only controls the legal part of it, not a religious part, if you happen to believe there is one.

Because someone else asked why a father couldn't marry his daughter or some such nonsense, which I feel is a mockery of our situation. It doesn't matter what I say as it will be dissected to death and quite frankly this whole thing is exasperating. I would love to marry, or have a civil union, whatever keeps people's panties from getting in a bunch, my partner of 22 years. I don't mean to come off as an ass, because I think you are asking a genuine question.

Do you want to be married or have a legally recognized contractual union?

I'm just so tired of having my life and our relationship compared to and called "sinful" behavior.

Now you're just bellyaching.

I'm not sure why the OP felt the need to start this thread. It's been rehashed, regurgitated, and recycled in its Various forms more times than I can count. Nothing changes because people's fundamental beliefs don't change. Frankly, without the religious component, I fail to the desire to be legally married in the first place. It's the height of hypocrisy to argue that government should get out of marriage/unions and then fight for the State to recognize yours.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'd rather the state didn't recognize my marriage. It can cause me far more harm than good. Of the aspects that I want legalized in my marriage, I could hire a lawyer to draft those. IE, hospital visitation, distribution of my assets, etc.

 

[Denny347]

It will happen sooner or later.

And as this will surely come to pass, we will, as time passes, find reason to become tolerant of other deviant (descriptive, not necessarily pejorative) behaviors and customs. Some of which the current supporters of homosexual now scoff at as being straw man arguements.

Entropy is abundant in the universe. I am convinced, without any self restraint, it is abundant in society too.

We sent our kids to IUPUI's Center for Young People from age 2 until they started 1st grade. Besides giving them a HUGE jump when they started grade school, they were exposed to MANY different cultures. They had friends from China, UAE, England, Africa, and a few had 2 dads or 2 moms. They are now in 6th and 4th grades and they don't understand the fuss people make about it. Younger generations are ALWAYS more tolerant than the previous it seems. Change is a Juggernaut that cannot be stopped.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

We sent our kids to IUPUI's Center for Young People from age 2 until they started 1st grade. Besides giving them a HUGE jump when they started grade school, they were exposed to MANY different cultures. They had friends from China, UAE, England, Africa, and a few had 2 dads or 2 moms. They are now in 6th and 4th grades and they don't understand the fuss people make about it. Younger generations are ALWAYS more tolerant than the previous it seems. Change is a Juggernaut that cannot be stopped.

Indeed it's not, especially with no self restraint and no common frame of reference...everything is a sliding, relative scale of morality.

 

[foszoe]

Quantify the word few for me. Exactly how many is a few?



There are several here who say they have no problem with civil unions, etc, only calling it marriage. How many of you would choose an anti gay marriage candidate over a pro gay marriage candidate?

Get the government out of the marriage business altogether. There should be no governmental advantages or benefits for married people over non married people. As far as legal issues, the 2 or more adults can have a lawyer draft their wishes, be it wills, living wills, etc.

As far as health insurance and other benefits given to married couples, let the private sector deal with it. Let's say a corporation is looking to hire for an engineering position. Applicant A is in a heterosexual marriage but is less qualified and provides less value than candidate B who is in a homosexual marriage. If candidate B turns down the job because the corp won't give him insurance, the corp loses. They're already paying for insurance for candidate A, why not B?

Thank you. Your question makes my point precisely.