Spine Doner List

[makattak]

First, thanks for the real answers. Would you be so kind as to answer the first question?

Sorry, I missed that one. What makes their church not as good as mine is their church is wrong. If I didn't believe their church to be wrong, I would be a member of that church.

Regarding this, "but if other religions still condemned it, I would oppose it on exactly the same grounds that this is a thinly veiled attack on religious liberty," are there things that other religions condemn that you don't support? To clarify, I doubt you support what every religion says and you make actually support opposing views.

I think people like Christian scientists are monumentally stupid and theologically unsound on (among many other things) refusing blood transfusions. I have a significant problem with forcing them to purchase insurance that covers blood transfusions for that very reason.

So there is something that other religions condemn that I don't support, but do support their right to be free from government coercion, just as I support the right of Christians to be free of government coercion over gay "marriage".

My point in #3 was just to say that no matter what happens with gay marriage, the people in this country are becoming less independant and liberty-minded whle becoming more dependant on government. That creates the situation where those people (dependents, leftists, etc) actively try to force people into their way of thinking. I don't want to force you, or anyone else, to accept gay marriage. I want to remove the barriers that tell people what they can not do, from the government's perspective. I still support and encourage you, your church, any business, and everyone else to decide with whom they associate.  Under no circumstance do I want to require you to accept gays, gay marriage, or anything else you don't like.

That's all fine and good, but pushing for gay marriage will result in a lessening of freedom (as pointed out by roo_ster, covering most of the first amendment) for a large number of individuals. You may not wish that to be the case, but that doesn't change reality.

As an aside, are there federal laws that prohibit gay marriage?

There are no laws that prohibit gay marriage, federal or otherwise. States may (and have) choose to enact government recognition as they wish. States that have not enacted government recognition or even specifically enacted a non-recognition statute still permit gay marriage, in contrast to the active banning they have for polygamy.

[Perd Hapley]

2. So, if from Day One, God or Jesus had said that homosexuality is OK, would you oppose gay marriage today? Aren't all of God's children loved equally?

If homosexuality were OK that wouldn't make it marriage material. Many things are morally or legally acceptable, but that doesn't make them marriages. Governments don't recognize marriages to help us all feel like we are God's children whom He loves equally.

Now, if Jesus said that homosexuality were OK, and that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships, I might change my mind.

We do note, of course, that same-sex relationships haven't usually been considered the basis for a marriage. Now why would so many cultures, with so many different religious teachings, and so many different lifestyles and circumstances over thousands of years, just happen to agree with American cultural traditions about this? What fundamental difference between the two relationships would cause this same evil prejudice to prevail around the world and throughout history? I just can't figure it out. 

[Ron]

Be careful fistful, you keep talking like that and Nick will be keepin his eye on you like he does with mak.

I suspect we've been sorted into some kind of category from what I've read.

Maybe the "impervious to the propaganda and group think of the cool kids" category.  

[Pharmacology]

He needs to decide which master he is going to serve - either the RCC of BHO. He cannot serve both.

I guess RCC >  that God  dude.  LOL.

[makattak]

And, to support my premise that the whole purpose of this is to attack religious liberty and the freedom of association:

Georgetown University professor Chai Feldblum says it is a compelling case of what happens in a moment of culture clash. Feldblum, who is an active proponent of gay rights, says the culture and state laws are shifting irrevocably to recognize same-sex unions. And while she knows it's hard for some to hear, she says companies and religious groups that serve the public need to recognize that their customers will be gay couples.

"They need to start thinking now, proactively, how they want to address that. Because I do think that if a gay couple ends up being told their wedding cannot be filmed, five couples will not sue, but the sixth couple will."

And as one legal expert puts it, the gay couples "would win in a walk."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

[Perd Hapley]

Does anyone else recall the people on this forum warning us that a socially conservative presidential candidate was going to focus the presidential election on social issues?

And did you further notice which presidential candidate has been making a stink over contraception and marriage in the past few months? (Hint: it's the one who needs to deflect attention from his failed economic policy.)

 

[MicroBalrog]

Does anyone else recall the people on this forum warning us that a socially conservative presidential candidate was going to focus the presidential election on social issues?

And did you further notice which presidential candidate has been making a stink over contraception and marriage in the past few months? (Hint: it's the one who needs to deflect attention from his failed economic policy.)

 

You're not pretending Romney is a true social conservative are you?

[Perd Hapley]

     I said not a word about Romney.

[grampster]

So, I did not read most of the previous comments.  Forgive me if I'm duplicating anything, but here goes.

The gay marriage thing is a straw man for forcing Americans to accept homosexuality as a "normal" lifestyle.  Pure and simple.

Government tax policy changes could solve some issues for homosexuals.  Wills and trusts, general power of attorney and power of attorney for health care could solve other issues.  Unrelated folks can become beneficiaries of life insurance policies by forming legal business partnerships as would the ownership of property.  As long as health insurance is going to be tinkered with by government fiat, allowing anyone to be on one's health policy as long as underwriting qualifications are met and premiums paid, is an easy fix there.  In otherwords nearly every so called problem encountered by folks who desire a homosexual relationship can be solved without having it "legally" acknowledged that a homosexual relationship is just another another "normal" human function.  That's the rub.  The activists all know the above, but what they want more than anything is validation.

My comments should not be considered a screed against homosexuality.  I have enough sins and faults of my own to be self righteously condemning others.  My comments are just that...comments.

[TommyGunn]

You're not pretending Romney is a true social conservative are you?

I, for one, am pretending he's better than Obama.

[RoadKingLarry]

I, for one, am pretending he's better than Obama.

A "bent sh1tcan" would be better than Obama. I'm not yet convinced that Romney rises to the level of "bent sh1tcan".

[Ron]

Editorial about the erosion of governmental respect for the freedom of conscience of military chaplains.

http://townhall.com/columnists/garymccaleb/2012/05/20/no_rights_of_conscience_for_military_chaplains/page/full/ 

[De Selby]

So, I did not read most of the previous comments.  Forgive me if I'm duplicating anything, but here goes.

The gay marriage thing is a straw man for forcing Americans to accept homosexuality as a "normal" lifestyle.  Pure and simple.

Government tax policy changes could solve some issues for homosexuals.  Wills and trusts, general power of attorney and power of attorney for health care could solve other issues.  Unrelated folks can become beneficiaries of life insurance policies by forming legal business partnerships as would the ownership of property.  As long as health insurance is going to be tinkered with by government fiat, allowing anyone to be on one's health policy as long as underwriting qualifications are met and premiums paid, is an easy fix there.  In otherwords nearly every so called problem encountered by folks who desire a homosexual relationship can be solved without having it "legally" acknowledged that a homosexual relationship is just another another "normal" human function.  That's the rub.  The activists all know the above, but what they want more than anything is validation.

My comments should not be considered a screed against homosexuality.  I have enough sins and faults of my own to be self righteously condemning others.  My comments are just that...comments.

Wait, so you think gays have equal rights as couples because they could spend thousands in legal fees to accomplish, by fairly tenuous legal arrangements which might be defeated, something close to a marriage (which isn't easily defeated)?

The "oh, they can get the same rights if they want to now" line is simply untrue.   It is impossible to recreate a marriage through a series of contracts.  You cannot have the same legal rights as a married couple vis a vis a partner through means other than a marriage.

I'd say the desire for those entitlements, free from state moral judgment, is more of a motivator than forcing Christians to like it.

[Pharmacology]

To Fistful, et al: 

Who cares if a government designates a certain relationship as a marriage?  Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your church?
The answer is invariably no, correct?

Then, why should it matter?   
A rose by any other name,  no?

[makattak]

To Fistful, et al:  

Who cares if a government designates a certain relationship as a marriage?  Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your church?
The answer is invariably no, correct?

Then, why should it matter?  
A rose by any other name,  no?

Who cares is a government designates a species as endangered? Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your Church? The answer is invariably no, correct?

Then, why should it matter?
A rose by any other name, no?

Who cares if a government declares semi-automatic shotguns illegal?  Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your church?
The answer is invariably no, correct?

Then, why should it matter?  
A rose by any other name,  no?

Who cares if a government creates a massive new entitlement to healthcare?  Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your church?
The answer is invariably no, correct?

Then, why should it matter?  
A rose by any other name,  no?


In case it's not clear, your question is a non-sequitor. Look at every single post in this thread. I will also suggest you look at every single post on this forum ever opposed to gay "marriage." No one has ever claimed it would harm their own marriage.

However, just because something doesn't harm my marriage doesn't mean it has no effect on me, my family, my church, and my community. Just to pull some random example out of the air...

Companies will be sued for choosing not to offer benefits to gay couples. Religious service organizations will be sued (or driven out of their ministry) for refusing to adopt a baby to a gay couple. Religous contractors will be sued for choosing not to bake a cake or photograph gay "wedding" ceremonies. Churches will be sued for choosing not to rent their building out to homosexual couples for their "weddings".

And I can safely make these predictions because other than the first statement, every single one of these have already happened before the government sanctions gay "marriage".

As for the requirement to offer the same benefits to gay couples, is there any doubt that a similar administration to the one currently in office that is forcing religious charities to offer abortofacients to their employees in contravention of their religious beliefs would even blink about forcing companies to treat gay couples the same way as straight couples?

This isn't a difficult concept: it is already happening.

[Perd Hapley]

To Fistful, et al: 

Who cares if a government designates a certain relationship as a marriage?  Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your church?
The answer is invariably no, correct?

Then, why should it matter?   
A rose by any other name,  no?

Read the thread.

[Perd Hapley]

I'll be a little more polite.

Are you not trying to use the power of government to make us accept your delusions religious principles?
I get allergic when folks try to force religious precepts on people using the power of the government.

I get allergic when folks try to force non-religious precepts on people using the power of government. I also get tired of people trying to claim that the heterosexuality of marriage is something peculiar to religion, as if it were not confirmed by society at large.

Popular mythology to the contrary, there's nothing special about religious ideas that makes them less valid in politics. A non-religious belief is not somehow more deserving to be enshrined in our legal code than a religious one. The scandal of the first amendment is that its separation of church and state (as institutions) has been twisted into a separation of belief and state. Or more precisely, a separation of religious belief and state. The bastard offspring of this confusion is the notion that secular principles make good government, while religious principles are to be shunned.

[griz]

I get allergic when folks try to force non-religious precepts on people using the power of government. I also get tired of people trying to claim that the heterosexuality of marriage is something peculiar to religion, as if it were not confirmed by society at large.

Popular mythology to the contrary, there's nothing special about religious ideas that makes them less valid in politics. A non-religious belief is not somehow more deserving to be enshrined in our legal code than a religious one. The scandal of the first amendment is that its separation of church and state (as institutions) has been twisted into a separation of belief and state. Or more precisely, a separation of religious belief and state. The bastard offspring of this confusion is the notion that secular principles make good government, while religious principles are to be shunned.

The parts I bolded seem to be on both sides of the fence.  Are you against same sex marriage because it's against your religion or some secular reason?

[Perd Hapley]

Not two sides of the fence; two subjects. The first paragraph concerns marriage. The other is about misunderstandings of religious freedom.

Religion is not the main issue in the marriage debate. My views on the politics thereof are independent of my religion.

[Pharmacology]

I for one think that what a marriage is should be decided at an individual church basis.
It's so simple that it's brain deadening.

religion a says gay marriages are cool.   Gay couples should get married within that church.

religion b  says they aren't cool.  Why should a gay couple want to be married within that entity? Facepalm if they try to force that entity to change pre-existing rules that they're aware of.  That pretty much boils down to a simple contract.  If either party (church and couple) isn't satisfied with the terms, then there shouldn't be an agreement.   Go find another religion /  church  that will accept your ways.  Duh.
If I go to a modern non-denominational  Christian church, and I find out that the spiritual leader of the church  is willing to ordain gay marriages through his church, I'll simply wish them the best, and find another church.  

I really don't get why this issue has to be so complicated.   ... Well...  that's a lie,  I do get why:

http://www.malakhgabriel.net/images/stopliking.jpg

Who cares is a government designates a species as endangered? Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your Church? The answer is invariably no, correct?
Then, why should it matter?
A rose by any other name, no?
Who cares if a government declares semi-automatic shotguns illegal?  Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your church?
The answer is invariably no, correct?

Then, why should it matter?  
A rose by any other name,  no?

Who cares if a government creates a massive new entitlement to healthcare?  Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your church? The answer is invariably no, correct?
Then, why should it matter?  
A rose by any other name,  no?


In case it's not clear, your question is a non-sequitor. Look at every single post in this thread. I will also suggest you look at every single post on this forum ever opposed to gay "marriage." No one has ever claimed it would harm their own marriage.

However, just because something doesn't harm my marriage doesn't mean it has no effect on me, my family, my church, and my community. Just to pull some random example out of the air...

Give me a break, mak.  A non-sequitur  would compare gay marriage to a myriad of other ridiculous things, like NFA weapons or endangered species.  You are so wrong about my post being a non-sequitur that I don't really know how else to put it. My post is quite apropos, and you're just wrong.  
Actually, I'm reading your post again, and I really don't get what point you're trying to make.
Are you saying that a short barreled shotgun is still just a shotgun to me, and that useless bureaucratic laws based on bureaucratic definitions are meaningless?
Do you not get how that just validates my point???  Surely you're not that dense, mak.



I compared gay marriages to straight marriages.
It really boils down to the fact that government nomenclature has some people all up in arms.  

Please re-read my post, I didn't say anyone was claiming gay marriages would harm straight marriages. I did ask how gay marriages would force one to change their perspectives.

If you're worried about how something affects you, then get counseling.
If you're worried about how something affects your family, then talk to your wife and kids.
If you're worried about how something affects your church, get with your pastor and the elders of your church so you can understand where they stand on the issue of gay marriage.
If you're worried about your community, then conduct some research to see how they view the issues.

Sorry, but using your own predictions as a citation or even a random example is laughable. your non sequitur concerning health care in that prophecy post is also irrelevant.

Read the thread.

You're incorrectly assuming I can somehow infer your answer to my question from your previous posts.
Read my post.  again.

[Perd Hapley]

OK, fine.

To Fistful, et al:  

Who cares if a government designates a certain relationship as a marriage?

Apparently, a lot of people on both sides of the issue.

Will that change what a marriage is to you/your God/your church?
The answer is invariably no, correct?

Yes, the answer is no.

Then, why should it matter?

 

Read the thread. Just to be extra nice, I went and dug out all of my comments in this thread that speak to your question. Behold:

No one believes for a minute that you are that ignorant. You know what marriage is.

Oh, so you've decided to tell yourself that marriage isn't what it plainly is. I see.

You decided. You decided. Exactly. The idea that the theorizing of a random "internet commando" is more relevant to the question of marriage than mere governments or religions perfectly reflects the same-sex marriage position. You think that people can flagrantly outrage tradition, religion and society (through homosexual behavior), and then expect to be embraced by the traditions of the society their behavior mocks. Tradition be spat upon, until the spitters demand that it be applied to them. Sorry, you're not pulling that fast one on me.

If folk want to live a non-traditional lifestyle, I don't stand in their way. But don't out-rightly reject social norms and then claim that you deserve to be recognized by them. You're either in, or you're out. Either you want marriage or you don't. If you want to spend your life with someone of the same sex, go ahead. But that means you reject marriage. Live with it. That is how freedom works.

This proves nothing about the current marriage debate, of course. The characteristics of marriage may be different from place to place, but that does not make it desirable to gut the very essence of marriage, as Fly320s wishes to do.

And of course, an appeal to infinitely mutable social definitions and traditions is no ground upon which to declare that marriage is "two adults entering into a contract," and therefore not sex-selective. If the institution can be twisted into anything we desire, then one view of marriage is as good as another. Appeals to justice, rights, equality or fairness are similarly invalid, being but traditions themselves. 

....Pretending not to understand basic concepts; where would the irrational marriage movement be without it?!

So government failing to recognize non-marriages - this is restricting people, in your fevered imagination?

It's precisely because homosexual relationships do not effect you or me that makes legal recognition of them so brainless.

Sorry, sunshine. You're the one proposing that our government(s) fall in line with some kooky idea dreamed up from out of nowhere. Your place is not to demand explanations from us sane folk - your place is to provide them. 'Cause it sounds like you're proposing a very bizarre solution to a problem that ain't there.

I certainly hope we can find enough people to agree that marriage is what it is. I hope we can find enough people who agree that water is wet. I'd prefer not to live in a polity where any legal or political goal, no matter how bizarre, can be brought about by people like yourself repeating inane assertions, then branding any dissenters as deniers of equal rights, bigots, etc. Then you demand that we prove our assertion that water is wet. It's tiresome.

If homosexuality were OK that wouldn't make it marriage material. Many things are morally or legally acceptable, but that doesn't make them marriages. Governments don't recognize marriages to help us all feel like we are God's children whom He loves equally.

Now, if Jesus said that homosexuality were OK, and that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships, I might change my mind.

We do note, of course, that same-sex relationships haven't usually been considered the basis for a marriage. Now why would so many cultures, with so many different religious teachings, and so many different lifestyles and circumstances over thousands of years, just happen to agree with American cultural traditions about this? What fundamental difference between the two relationships would cause this same evil prejudice to prevail around the world and throughout history? I just can't figure it out. 

A rose by any other name,  no?

No.

[makattak]

Give me a break, mak.  A non-sequitur  would compare gay marriage to a myriad of other ridiculous things, like NFA weapons or endangered species.  You are so wrong about my post being a non-sequitur that I don't really know how else to put it. My post is quite apropos, and you're just wrong.  

No, your point is a non-sequitur and a strawman. No one in this entire thread or the history of APS is arguing that if gay people get "married" it will harm the marriage of the gay marriage opponents. You valiantly knocked that strawman down, though. Kudos!

Actually, I'm reading your post again, and I really don't get what point you're trying to make.
Are you saying that a short barreled shotgun is still just a shotgun to me, and that useless bureaucratic laws based on bureaucratic definitions are meaningless?
Do you not get how that just validates my point???  Surely you're not that dense, mak.

No, I was making the point that my opposition to stupid laws like the endangered species, NFA restrictions and the ACA (Obamacare) have absolutely nothing to do with how those laws will affect my marriage to my wife, just as my opposition to government sanctioned homosexual "marriage" has nothing to do with how those laws will affect my marriage to my wife.

I compared gay marriages to straight marriages.

No, you didn't.

It really boils down to the fact that government nomenclature has some people all up in arms.

No, it isn't. It comes down to using the force of government against those who oppose homosexual "marriages" in contravention of the first amendment.    

Please re-read my post, I didn't say anyone was claiming gay marriages would harm straight marriages. I did ask how gay marriages would force one to change their perspectives.

I think you are being disingenuous here. You are clearly implying that homosexual "marriages" would not harm my or any other opponents marriage so we should just stop opposing them.

If you're worried about how something affects you, then get counseling.
If you're worried about how something affects your family, then talk to your wife and kids.
If you're worried about how something affects your church, get with your pastor and the elders of your church so you can understand where they stand on the issue of gay marriage.
If you're worried about your community, then conduct some research to see how they view the issues.

Sorry, but using your own predictions as a citation or even a random example is laughable. your non sequitur concerning health care in that prophecy post is also irrelevant.

If you had actually read the post, my "predictions" have already happened in this very country.  My "predictions" are of the same quality of those who lay out the dangers of gun registration.

Or are you ok with gun registration because it will in no way harm your ownership of guns?

[grampster]

Wait, so you think gays have equal rights as couples because they could spend thousands in legal fees to accomplish, by fairly tenuous legal arrangements which might be defeated, something close to a marriage (which isn't easily defeated)?

The "oh, they can get the same rights if they want to now" line is simply untrue.   It is impossible to recreate a marriage through a series of contracts.  You cannot have the same legal rights as a married couple vis a vis a partner through means other than a marriage.

I'd say the desire for those entitlements, free from state moral judgment, is more of a motivator than forcing Christians to like it.

Virtually every suggestion that I made in my post, save necessary tax policy changes and some reformation of health care which could be lobbied, my heterosexual wife and I did in order to simplify any problems that may come up with while living the vagaries of life.  So in defending the Straw Man, you seem to think that homosexuals should somehow also be exempted from taking legal steps to simplify life's problems because it costs money? Pshaw, DeSelby.