Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

reply to post by Annee

The marriage license in America was adopted to prevent interracial marriage.

And before that, oh say about Romeo and Juliet's time all marriage required was a dowry. Parents married their daughters off at the earliest possible time to get them off the family's hands.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked


Well, I hate to say this, but I think that may say more about Americans than Christianity. Please show me a Jewish or Muslim place of worship that will perform a same sex marriage...... sorry? You can't find one? No, you can't.

Orthodox rabbi marries gay couple in historic wedding in DC

by: shakimia - Monday, November 14, 2011

The two major identities that stick out for me are my Jewish and Queer identities. Anytime I see or read something about the intersectionality between the two, I get extra emotional.

This week was the first ever orthodox ordained gay wedding.

www.amplifyyourvoice.org...

lol, ok, that's one!!!! Does it represent the Jewish community as a whole? If so, I applaud it.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Blacks had no respect for democracy either when they tried to get civil rights.

How can anyone respect the gay community if they don't respect democracy?

=Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
=Where liberty dwells, there is my country.

Both quotes by the disrespectful Benyamin Franklin.
We do not live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic

Accused witches didn't respect the democracy of salem that decided to burn them

Wrong side of history, wrong way of thinking. Understand the nation you live in.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Annee

 

Please correct me if I am wrong. You support forcing all religious groups to recognize and perform gay marriages under proposed federal law?

Or are you saying for religious groups that are more than willing to perform gay marriages?

It just sounds so clear when you put it that way.

The SCOTUS forcing the Catholic Church to perform a marriage?

If they refuse then just throw a $200 Million fine at them?

It all sounds so totalitarian and very wrong.

Originally posted by ollncasino
In a recent UK survey, only 34% of people agreed with gay marriage.

ComRes Poll

Support for gay marriage is somewhat lacking.

edit on 23-5-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)

No one asked me, I would agree with gay marriage - do you have the numbers used in that straw poll?

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Annee

 

Please correct me if I am wrong. You support forcing all religious groups to recognize and perform gay marriages under proposed federal law?

Or are you saying for religious groups that are more than willing to perform gay marriages?

You can't force religious groups to do squat...Actually, I take it back
the current view of conservatives is to ban gays being married, which would -force- progressive churches to not marry...(same with states).
so yes, there is some force going on..but its all coming from the right.

The discussion here is more recognition of a institution for purposes of tax status, legal ability (hospital visits, etc)...
But no...you cannot force a unwilling church to marry someone...its their decision 100%...the argument is simply for states to allow it if a church wants to do it.


republicans are shoving their views down the throats of religion through legislation. the wolf is wearing wool here.

I'm Jewish and the Rabbi at my CONSERVATIVE synagogue is a lesbian female. If you're gay you should support Ron Paul because his belief is government has no authority to regulate who can and can't get married.

Originally posted by Kharron
Well, look at yourself in the mirror... you have replaced those bigots and hypocrites from half a century ago. Congratulations!

I think you should tone down your attack on the pro-gay marriage camp.

I know pro-gay activists can be a little hot headed at times and somewhat abusive, but to call them bigots and hypocrites is too much.

At the end of the day, we should show pro-gay activists some respect even if they show no respect for democracy.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Annee

 

Please correct me if I am wrong. You support forcing all religious groups to recognize and perform gay marriages under proposed federal law?

Or are you saying for religious groups that are more than willing to perform gay marriages?

Are you missing where I've said a church/priest/minister - - - whatever - - - can refuse anyone? They don't even have to have a reason. It is their constitutional right.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I agree that this issue MUST change. I'm just concerned now about how we go about that change. I am unwilling to allow rights for one group at the expense of another. I am asking these questions because the nuances of how we do this are very important. How do we preserve liberty and freedom for everyone?

This is the essential question, and some here seem unwilling to discuss this.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by SaturnFX

We are demanding the government alter a religious viewpoint
We need to be demanding the government remove the religious viewpoint...not alter it.

For the record, I agree with you SaturnFX. But I don't see this on any ballots. It would get voted down by the religious right anyway. I wish this issue would get to the Supreme Court, because I think it could be fixed there. I think even a conservative-leaning SC would say it makes sense to remove religion out of government altogether. Let's have civil union licenses for everyone, and marriage ceremonies for those that want it.

I thought that also
to be the most logical solution where all parties can agree.
I then started discussing this to one of those ultra social conservatives..whom said no..he would fully reject that idea.
Why?
Because this is a christian nation and christian values must be pushed into law as much as possible.

Logical people think this way
These people are not logical...they are fanatical and see the taliban not as some horrible organization, but rather as an inspiration and a good idea.

two completely different planets..two completely different species.

It's simple actually. Make sure Ron Paul is president so he can eliminate the freedom eating regulations placed on all of us. The government should not regulate the pursuit of happiness. That is an individual right.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Really that is irrelevant. We don't ascribe to mob rule in the USA.

Apparently gay rights activists have no respect for democracy.

Gays have lost the vote on gay marriage in all 31 states where voters have forced a referedum.

Gay marriage thrown out by all 31 U.S. states where it has been put to vote

edit on 23-5-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)

I said it before, Progressives want direct democracy until the tide turns against them. Then suddenly it's all about the rights of the minority.
This is incidentally why I do not support the demands of OWS, as they are demanding to have participatory democracy as a replacement for the Representative Republic.

Originally posted by libertytoall
I'm Jewish and the Rabbi at my CONSERVATIVE synagogue is a lesbian female. If you're gay you should support Ron Paul because his belief is government has no authority in regulating who can and can't get married.

edit on 23-5-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

The Church of England ordains gay vicars................. but not married ones, or at least married to the same sex. What is your point and why bring Ron Paul into it? Government provides the marriage certificate, not the church in which it was performed in (if it was performed in one).

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee

 

The marriage license in America was adopted to prevent interracial marriage.

And before that, oh say about Romeo and Juliet's time all marriage required was a dowry. Parents married their daughters off at the earliest possible time to get them off the family's hands.

Well yes exactly - - women were property - - they were sold - bartered - gifted - used for political alliances - etc.

Then many found real lovers on the side.

And Marriage Licenses came about to skirt around laws. Laws about waiting periods or something like that - - - but if you got a license you could get married right away.

The "Sanctity of Marriage"

reply to post by freakjive


My only issue with the OP's post is in giving the list of reasons. None of that matters really. A true Conservative doesn't believe in limiting the rights of individuals. Those who only want "their brand" of freedoms are not really conservatives as typically defined.

A true conservative American believes that religions should have 100% choice in who is married in their eyes - this is a religious social choice, and truly has no bearing on civil law at all.

Now what the state allows, for purposes of legal unification of assets, taxes, incomes, etc., is decided by the state. Typically, the two overlap (I.e. A Catholic priest is not only marrying a couple "in the church", he is also joining those individuals legally, under the laws of the state. That sme priest, even if gay marriage was allowed by state and federal law, would never have to marry a gay couple. Judges would, and religious insitutions who want to can.

The big issue is why any of those who call themselves "conservative" would want the government limiting the right of individuals to marry, gay or straight. Perhaps they've lost sight of what conservative

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Annee

 

Please correct me if I am wrong. You support forcing all religious groups to recognize and perform gay marriages under proposed federal law?

Or are you saying for religious groups that are more than willing to perform gay marriages?

Are you missing where I've said a church/priest/minister - - - whatever - - - can refuse anyone? They don't even have to have a reason. It is their constitutional right.

Currently, yes this is true.

Again, my question is about under proposed NEW law.

My position is that it is very important to pass this legislation in a way that protects everyone's liberty.

The liberties of the gay community, the liberties of the religious folks and the liberties of the non-religious folks.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I agree that this issue MUST change. I'm just concerned now about how we go about that change. I am unwilling to allow rights for one group at the expense of another. I am asking these questions because the nuances of how we do this are very important. How do we preserve liberty and freedom for everyone?

This is the essential question, and some here seem unwilling to discuss this.

Its not that hard
Religion currently supports being propped up by the government...which is highly dangerous to both.
What you, if you are concerned about the integrity of the church or the nation, should do is hop on the equality train.
Why?
Because if things get strong enough, the church themself will remove themselves from state legislation and become simply their own entity again.
the seperation of church and state was not just so the church cannot corrupt the state, but also so the state cannot corrupt the church.

The line is being angrily dismissed...so...lets show some consequences then...lets show that the state can corrupt the hell out of a church.

Its a no win situation...or a both win situation...right now, the national discussion is on how to further the no win situation...I think we have gone mad...its like a heated discussion on which fiinger we should purposefully break for no reason...and nobody is suggesting "hey, how about we simply not break our fingers as its pointless and hurts..."

I am really confused about the core of this issue. Are there truely so few sane people left to look outside this very weird box?

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by libertytoall
I'm Jewish and the Rabbi at my CONSERVATIVE synagogue is a lesbian female. If you're gay you should support Ron Paul because his belief is government has no authority in regulating who can and can't get married.

edit on 23-5-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

The Church of England ordains gay vicars................. but not married ones, or at least married to the same sex. What is your point and why bring Ron Paul into it? Government provides the marriage certificate, not the church in which it was performed in (if it was performed in one).

edit on 23-5-2012 by something wicked because: vicars, not rectors

I brought up Ron Paul because he believes it's unconstitutional for the government to give out marriage certificates in the first place. It's unconstitutional for the government to define marriage. It's unconstitutional to disallow two individuals from pursuing happiness if it doesn't harm anyone else. Ron Paul is the only candidate who truly believes in personal freedom across the board. Freedom for everyone.

As a gay person, I think for now, the civil partnerships should be accepted as "good enough" for now. It is progress. It is better than nothing, in all honesty, I think religious people need to cling on to their ideas and beliefs much more than a gay person requires their marriage to be called a marriage, even though technically it is one. People's religions being upturned will result in many lost and sad people.