What's wrong with gay marriage?
- Thread starter Optional
- Start date
Is this any different than when black folk were not considered humans like white folk. Or when black folk weren't allowed to be educated in white schools?
I mean, is this much different?
Are those who are against the progression of the gays as equal members of society as heteros any different than those who were against the progress of the blacks?
I mean, is this much different?
Are those who are against the progression of the gays as equal members of society as heteros any different than those who were against the progress of the blacks?
This is my view, too.
Iâve never understood how anyone who spent the past four-plus years lamenting the size of government could then argue for its increase by inviting it into the discussion of marriage. We complain about government in health care, we complain about government in education, we complain about government regulating soft drink size, but suddenly some of us have no problem with more government in peopleâs relationships with one another. Marriage is a covenant between a man, woman, and God before God on His terms. It is a religious civil liberty, not a right granted by government. It should never have been regulated by government in the first place, and government shouldnât have an expanded reach in further regulating it now. There is no allowance constitutionally that invites our government to define the religious covenant of marriage.
Iâve no issue with same sex couples entering into contractual agreements with each other or sharing benefits (the military decisions should be made by those with the credit of service day in and day out, not civilian advocacy groups). Isnât that the goal of this conflict? If so, to me, thatâs an issue separate from marriage. In suing over âmarriageâ itself one is demanding that God change His definition of the union between a man and a woman. If recognition of status, ease with other contractual obligations, and other issues are the issues, why the need to force people of faith to alter recognition of Godâs Word on the matter? The people may bend as reeds to lawfare, but God will not. Frankly, I see no point in being on any side other than Godâs on any matter, and God is more small government than any player in the scene.
http://www.redstate.com/dloesch/201...-marriage-equality-is-not-a-conservative-one/
Iâve never understood how anyone who spent the past four-plus years lamenting the size of government could then argue for its increase by inviting it into the discussion of marriage. We complain about government in health care, we complain about government in education, we complain about government regulating soft drink size, but suddenly some of us have no problem with more government in peopleâs relationships with one another. Marriage is a covenant between a man, woman, and God before God on His terms. It is a religious civil liberty, not a right granted by government. It should never have been regulated by government in the first place, and government shouldnât have an expanded reach in further regulating it now. There is no allowance constitutionally that invites our government to define the religious covenant of marriage.
Iâve no issue with same sex couples entering into contractual agreements with each other or sharing benefits (the military decisions should be made by those with the credit of service day in and day out, not civilian advocacy groups). Isnât that the goal of this conflict? If so, to me, thatâs an issue separate from marriage. In suing over âmarriageâ itself one is demanding that God change His definition of the union between a man and a woman. If recognition of status, ease with other contractual obligations, and other issues are the issues, why the need to force people of faith to alter recognition of Godâs Word on the matter? The people may bend as reeds to lawfare, but God will not. Frankly, I see no point in being on any side other than Godâs on any matter, and God is more small government than any player in the scene.
http://www.redstate.com/dloesch/201...-marriage-equality-is-not-a-conservative-one/
by the way there is one other practical point I wish to make that I made once before...
Gay marriages between males don't last.
There is no fricken male on this planet gay or straight who really would ever want to be around another male for many years.
The idea is absurd. The idea of two males being married til they die is absurd. Males are not that way. You have two people who say themselves why the hell would I put up with this shit?
Its why gay marriages don't last.
Its not a homosexual problem... its a male problem.
Seriously ten years of coming home to the same male?
Don't be ridiculous... that is bullshit.
Males can't be married to males for life.
Gays have every right to be treated equally as people.
So make it unions drop this marriage stuff.
Gay marriages between males don't last.
There is no fricken male on this planet gay or straight who really would ever want to be around another male for many years.
The idea is absurd. The idea of two males being married til they die is absurd. Males are not that way. You have two people who say themselves why the hell would I put up with this shit?
Its why gay marriages don't last.
Its not a homosexual problem... its a male problem.
Seriously ten years of coming home to the same male?
Don't be ridiculous... that is bullshit.
Males can't be married to males for life.
Gays have every right to be treated equally as people.
So make it unions drop this marriage stuff.
The issue is not whether or not it is a good idea or good public policy. It is whether or not gay marriage is mandated by the Constitution.
Those are two very different questions that these activist groups like to mix together.
Scalia had a great point. When exactly did it become unconstitutional, he asked. If the answer is "because society has evolved, attitudes have changed", then that is an argument for making changes through the democratic process, ie through elections. Of course, that is a little awkward for the gay marriage activists because they are trying to strike down an exercise in democracy. Prop 8 after all was a statewide vote of the people of arguably our most liberal state.
Those are two very different questions that these activist groups like to mix together.
Scalia had a great point. When exactly did it become unconstitutional, he asked. If the answer is "because society has evolved, attitudes have changed", then that is an argument for making changes through the democratic process, ie through elections. Of course, that is a little awkward for the gay marriage activists because they are trying to strike down an exercise in democracy. Prop 8 after all was a statewide vote of the people of arguably our most liberal state.