Todd Young did not waste any time in proving his continued worthlessness

[Liberty Sanders]

So that is the basis for freedom in the USA? Interesting.

Turn the heat up on the water just a tad more.......we've almost got the frog cooked.

The basis of freedom in the USA is freedom.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I don't think that any employer can create his own definition of marriage. What if a Jewish employer decrees that legal marriage only exists between Jews?

What if the Jewish employer does that? Does that harm you? The only way it can affect you is if you freely choose to go and work for them. But to say that a Jew, as an employer, should be forced by the state, to do what the state says with his/her own money, and can only hire consenting employees if he/she conforms to a state-mandated definition of who should receive what benefits; how in the world can you justify that under the principle of freedom?

 

[Ziggidy]

Consenting adult?

Does that include 3 year olds who want a sex change?

Just because it may not effect you in a harmfull way does not mean it is not immorally wrong.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't think that any employer can create his own definition of marriage. What if a Jewish employer decrees that legal marriage only exists between Jews?

Let’s do a consistency check. If we’re to be a truly free country, why can’t they? If a Jewish employer makes such a decree and a Christian comes to work for them and is then denied benefits the Jews are paying for as a part of their compensation package because they don’t recognize Christian marriages, is that wrong? Aren’t truly free people allowed to make such decisions on how they wish to run their companies?

 

[Ziggidy]

The basis of freedom in the USA is freedom.

Not what you stated, but that's ok.

 

[buckwacker]

Are there militant gays who want to get in our faces about this? Of course, just like anti-gunners.

But I have friends who are gay married couples, and I even served as a combination best man/ring bearer for two lady friends of mine when they got married.

The vast majority of these folks have no desire whatsoever to interfere with anyone else. They just want to live their lives, same as you.

If they only want to live their lives, they should have been perfectly content with civil unions. But they weren't, because they wanted society to bend to THEM. They demanded that everyone else redefine an institution for THEM. Many people consider this harmful to them and the rest of society, so why are their concerns dismissed in favor of placating a relative handful of people in need of societal coddling.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

What if the Jewish employer does that? Does that harm you? The only way it can affect you is if you freely choose to go and work for them. But to say that a Jew, as an employer, should be forced by the state, to do what the state says with his/her own money, and can only hire consenting employees if he/she conforms to a state-mandated definition of who should receive what benefits; how in the world can you justify that under the principle of freedom?

Any civilized society that fails to have a consistent definition of marriage, a legal state which is the foundation for a number of legal rights and responsibilities, will degenerate into sheer chaos.

There are people right now trying to make the case that there are dozens of genders. Do you REALLY want there to be that many definitions of marriage?

 

[Cameramonkey]

Consenting adult?

Does that include 3 year olds who want a sex change?

Just because it may not effect you in a harmfull way does not mean it is not immorally wrong.

Stop trolling.

 

[bobzilla]

I understand that, and my question wasn't meant to take things in the direction of beating the dead horse of "the government shouldn't be involved in marriage." I was just legitimately curious where you would draw the line at, knowing that the government is involved in marriage.

You're logic is (if I understand correctly) "If Joe and Mary get X benefits for living together in a committed relationship, then Jim and Steve should, too." I'm just wondering if this extends to situations where Jim and Steve are brothers? What about polygamous relationships; can you give me a non-religious reason why three consenting adults don't deserve marriage benefits?

My "logic" has always been what two (or more) consenting adults choose to do with each other is their business not mine. If two brother can legally be married then so be it. Polygamy in many states is illegal, so at this time those states say that is not a legal marriage. Me personally? I don't care and states where it is legal good for them.

But I'm not trying to shove my beliefs down anyone else's throats. I just want to be left the **** alone and I'll leave you alone (again, not personal but royal use of "you")

 

[Liberty Sanders]

If they only want to live their lives, they should have been perfectly content with civil unions. But they weren't, because they wanted society to bend to THEM. They demanded that everyone else redefine an institution for THEM. Many people consider this harmful to them and the rest of society, so why are their concerns dismissed in favor of placating a relative handful of people in need of societal coddling.

Content with civil unions? Why?

The ladies for whom I served as best man when they married were married by their pastor.

They didn't want to make anyone "bend" to anything, nor were they seeking to be "coddled." They just wanted to be married.

Which they were. By a clergyman. That's a marriage, not a civil union.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Any civilized society that fails to have a consistent definition of marriage, a legal state which is the foundation for a number of legal rights and responsibilities, will degenerate into sheer chaos.

There are people right now trying to make the case that there are dozens of genders. Do you REALLY want there to be that many definitions of marriage?

Do you not see your own hypocrisy? I mean in all due respect this is not logically consistent. Why do you get to expand the definition of marriage by one kind while denying polygamists (for example) their right to be married? Chaos is where we’re at right now because people insisted on knocking down the consistent definitions of marriage, gender, etc. we’ve had for generations.

 

[TheTrooper]

Does the LGBTQ+ agenda serve good? Or does it serve a globalist depopulation agenda set into motion decades ago? Does it serve furthering strong fruitful families, or does it encourage childless narcissistic and destructive behavior? How did we get to the point of drag queens in schools and surgical mutilation of children being called compassion? Can you spot the inversion? Truth is a resilient thing.

 

[TheTrooper]

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Any civilized society that fails to have a consistent definition of marriage, a legal state which is the foundation for a number of legal rights and responsibilities, will degenerate into sheer chaos.

There are people right now trying to make the case that there are dozens of genders. Do you REALLY want there to be that many definitions of marriage?

Sheer chaos? Can you give some examples?

Say a Jewish employer only wants to recognize Jewish marriages. Can you give an example of how this would cause chaos?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Do you not see your own hypocrisy? I mean in all due respect this is not logically consistent. Why do you get to expand the definition of marriage by one kind while denying polygamists (for example) their right to be married? Chaos is where we’re at right now because people insisted on knocking down the consistent definitions of marriage, gender, etc. we’ve had for generations.

Who said that I want to deny polygamists the right to marry? Consenting adults exists in groups other than pairs.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

My "logic" has always been what two (or more) consenting adults choose to do with each other is their business not mine. If two brother can legally be married then so be it. Polygamy in many states is illegal, so at this time those states say that is not a legal marriage. Me personally? I don't care and states where it is legal good for them.

But I'm not trying to shove my beliefs down anyone else's throats. I just want to be left the **** alone and I'll leave you alone (again, not personal but royal use of "you")

Well, even if I don't fully agree, I think I can understand your perspective.

My fear is that this bill is meant not to allow people to live their own lives as they see fit, but to force individuals and institutions to conform to a state-mandated definition of marriage, even if that violates their religious beliefs. If that is incorrect, then I can see why you would have no problem with this bill, as that would be logically consistent from your perspective.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Who said that I want to deny polygamists the right to marry? Consenting adults exists in groups other than pairs.

To be truly free, any combination and permutation of persons (and whatever else) must be allowed to call themselves married. Not just consenting adults. To be truly free anybody must be able to define themselves as any gender they desire. You are the one that is calling for government definitions to avoid chaos.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

…

The ladies for whom I served as best man when they married were married by their pastor.

…

Which they were. By a clergyman. That's a marriage, not a civil union.

It is nothing new to have people calling themselves pastors that lead their congregations astray. It started happening about 5 minutes after the first church began meeting. As this culture continues its moral decay it is dragging the church with it.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Who said that I want to deny polygamists the right to marry? Consenting adults exists in groups other than pairs.

So if I as a consenting adult want to work for another consenting adult, but this other consenting adult is a Jew who does not want to recognize my Christian marriage, and thus I won't receive marriage benefits from him; but we both understand and consent to this, tell me again why the state should deny us the right to have this relationship? What sort of societal chaos will ensue from it?

 

[buckwacker]

Content with civil unions? Why?

The ladies for whom I served as best man when they married were married by their pastor.

They didn't want to make anyone "bend" to anything, nor were they seeking to be "coddled." They just wanted to be married.

Which they were. By a clergyman. That's a marriage, not a civil union.

Because marriage has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Why do the slimmest of majorities of people with sexually deviant desires get to redefine words and institutions for everyone else? If they want the same benefits, they can be happy with civil unions.