Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

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.

Off topic - - but I don't get the OWS at all.

It reminds me of my husbands Civilization game. The people get unhappy - - then you have to give them something so they'll go about their lives doing their thing - - till they get unhappy again - - then repeat the process.

How does one address a mob of individual unhappy people. Each one is unhappy for their own reason - - but who really knows what that reason is - - except they've all come together in an unhappy mob.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

BACK TO OP

1. Gay marriage promotes personal responsibility.

2. Gay marriage promotes family values.

3. Gay marriage promotes commitment and stability.

4. Gay marriage promotes freedom.

5. Gay marriage is an example of limited governmental powers.

Originally posted by libertytoall
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.

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

Well, it appears I am on RP's side here.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
We do not live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic

It truely is frightening that the pro-gay marriage movement appears to have no respect for democracy.

How can the gay movement expect to be respected when it doesn't respect democracy?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

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.

Off topic - - but I don't get the OWS at all.

It reminds me of my husbands Civilization game. The people get unhappy - - then you have to give them something so they'll go about their lives doing their thing - - till they get unhappy again - - then repeat the process.

How does one address a mob of individual unhappy people. Each one is unhappy for their own reason - - but who really knows what that reason is - - except they've all come together in an unhappy mob.

The problem with the OWS thing is, they never had a clear message.
If it was unfair trade laws..great...and agreed.
If it was wealth disparity? ok..lets contemplate the issues (trade laws again)
But ya..it was..we got a ton of people, upset about a ton of different things, all coming together asking for...erm...you name it. You simply cannot get any coherent point that way.

One thing right, left, and center agrees on (if their IQ is higher than a grapefruit anyhow) is that democracy is a horrible invention...bunch of nobodies weighing in on policy and mob rule mentality..nonsense.

and OWS is basically a bunch of people thinking this is a democracy (not 100% their fault..politicians keep saying this is a democracy, thinking people will understand the democracy only comes in when electing a representative, not on actual issues)

Originally posted by Annee

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"

Perhaps if society still required a dowry, gays would not wish to enter in to such an agreement. But I suppose a dowry could just be reduced to the price of a license.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

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.

What NEW law? (in America)

Equality of Marriage - - - - does in no way affect the constitutional rights of religion.

The Religious - - - just like to throw that in as more anti-gay rhetoric. Its FALSE!

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by SaturnFX
We do not live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic

It truely is frightening that the pro-gay marriage movement appears to have no respect for democracy.

How can the gay movement expect to be respected when it doesn't respect democracy?

Let me put this a different way
They don't want or care for your respect.
neither does anyone whom has an opposing viewpoint
What they want is equality, not respect. individuals will earn respect.

I personally do not respect the GOP. the majority of the country does not respect them. I personally respect many conservatives however.
the GOP doesn't require respect in order to operate, gay rights does not require respect in order to have their rights, blacks did not require the respect of the majority before achieving civil rights, etc.


I do not respect religion...that doesn't mean I demand they stop preaching. They have every right to set up church right across the street and preach daily if they want, and with my blessing...because even though I may not respect the church, I do respect their rights.

Originally posted by LightInside
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.

That was a very respectful and even sensitive toward the groups that have held back acceptance of yourself. I feel individuals should define marriage not a church or government.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

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.

So do you really support equal rights, or something else? Please clarify your position for me, thank you.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

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.

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

Sean Hannity had a progressive on his show a few weeks ago.

It was very entertaining.

They are clearly in the minority.

reply to post by Annee

Off topic - - but I don't get the OWS at all.

It is not off topic at all when we are talking about laws and marriage as related to democracy. Progressives want their cake and eat it too to use the much used cliche.

reply to post by Annee


Federal law under SCOTUS. You said it will soon come to pass. I just want to clarify if this is the best way to create this change. I currently lean towards Ron Paul's position.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Annee

 

Federal law under SCOTUS. You said it will soon come to pass. I just want to clarify if this is the best way to create this change. I currently lean towards Ron Paul's position.

The Religious love to make a stink that legalizing gay marriage will force them to marry gays.

THIS IS FALSE!

Religion is protected by the US Constitution. PERIOD!

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by libertytoall
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.

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

Well, it appears I am on RP's side here.

Why are you on RPs side? He will let states decide. He doesn't flip flop because he will put that pressure on the states. You will end up with the Gay States, the Abortion States, the Drug Free States..... you will end up with an absolute mess.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
I currently lean towards Ron Paul's position.

I wouldn't support Ron Paul if he was the only person running.

Idealism is a nice word - - - it isn't reality.

Study the effects of what he proposes with great care.

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.

I will discuss it
The church is a hamburger chain.
you want a hamburger, but you would like it with mustard on it.
You go to a hamburger shop and they say no...mustard or no sale.
You shrug and walk down the street to the next hamburger shop whom will remove the mustard.

did that somehow infringe in the rights of the first hamburger shop?

there is no crossover here...if a church decides to marry a gay couple, thats the churches decision..if they choose not to, they choose not to..the church isn't a (official) business..they are a organization..a club...you can refuse ceremonies or admittance if you want to or not in such a place.

What the (some) republicans want is for you, when you go down the street to the other hamburger shop, is for the owner to say..well, gee, I would like to give you a burger minus mustard, but regulations came out requiring mustard (man and woman only) to be put on all burgers, period..so sorry.

Which side do you personally see as harming the liberties of people..

Originally posted by something wicked

Why are you on RPs side? He will let states decide. He doesn't flip flop because he will put that pressure on the states. You will end up with the Gay States, the Abortion States, the Drug Free States..... you will end up with an absolute mess.

Exactly!

We'll end up like Afghanistan - - - and a bunch of idealistic tribes - - - all vying for power.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Well I sort of meant a subset of Progressives being a minority.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee

 

Off topic - - but I don't get the OWS at all.

It is not off topic at all when we are talking about laws and marriage as related to democracy. Progressives want their cake and eat it too to use the much used cliche.

Ok.

I just want Legal Marriage for everyone.

Not discussing anything beyond that.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
I currently lean towards Ron Paul's position.

I wouldn't support Ron Paul if he was the only person running.

Idealism is a nice word - - - it isn't reality.

Study the effects of what he proposes with great care.

How I see Paul is someone whom wants to make the best freaking boat ever..absolutely wonderful. plush seating, lovely art on the walls, just how we want
then remove the bottom and let the whole thing drop like a rock to the bottom of the ocean.

He is extreme..some views I extremely like, and some are extremely made of complete fail...therefore yes...completely unelectable. But, the views he says that I like, I still like.

People have a way of tossing out all ideas when some ideas are bad. See: Hitler and eugenics...it always comes down to people thinking you want to murder people when you discuss removing flaws from our species over time.