Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Are you arguing against fairness?

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Are you arguing against fairness?

he usually does

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Are you arguing against fairness?

he usually does

Naah, ThirdEye just wants to go back to the 1950's, when women wore pearls and high heels while preparing dinner, men smoked pipes while they read the paper, blacks knew their place, and there were no such things as "gays" -- just girly men who were life-long bachelors.

Gays have no right to hijack the word 'marriage'

You have no right to hijack the word "grumpage", this is why you are protesting here.

Here is a good avatar for all protestors!

www.coolavatars.net...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by nunya13

Originally posted by Eurisko2012


31 states have said - no way - to gay marriage.

There are only 50 states.

That means a - clear majority - agree with me.

Unless you consider yourself a state, you need to do the math again.

edit on 24-5-2012 by nunya13 because: to make my point more succinct.

Majority as in "over half" ? Last I checked 25 was half of 50. Therefore 31 is over half.

The truth shall set us free.

They just don't like being in the minority.

The issue of gay marriage shows how powerful lobbyists can take such an absurb idea and try to present it as a human rights issue. First of all marriage was created by the church as a way for a family have children that beared their name. I don't care what you do in your home but don't try and make the gay lifestyle out to be nomal and something everybody should embrace.

If the gay lifestyle was so great then why have thousands of innocent victims died while receiving tainted blood from donors who have aids, and where did aids come from? A man having sex with monkies in Africa.

Originally posted by lme7898354
The issue of gay marriage shows how powerful lobbyists can take such an absurb idea and try to present it as a human rights issue. First of all marriage was created by the church as a way for a family have children that beared their name. I don't care what you do in your home but don't try and make the gay lifestyle out to be nomal and something everybody should embrace.

If the gay lifestyle was so great then why have thousands of innocent victims died while receiving tainted blood from donors who have aids, and where did aids come from? A man having sex with monkies in Africa.

Ya know what.

I'm just not even going to bother with this much ignorance any more.

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by lme7898354
The issue of gay marriage shows how powerful lobbyists can take such an absurb idea and try to present it as a human rights issue. First of all marriage was created by the church as a way for a family have children that beared their name. I don't care what you do in your home but don't try and make the gay lifestyle out to be nomal and something everybody should embrace.

If the gay lifestyle was so great then why have thousands of innocent victims died while receiving tainted blood from donors who have aids, and where did aids come from? A man having sex with monkies in Africa.

That homophobic rant has been debunked. Granted, the promiscuity in the gay community did help it spread very quickly, but keep in mind, they were men (who happened to be gay). Men at that time were very promiscuous, not just the gay ones. When it was introduced into that community of men, it spread very quickly because they had a LOT of unprotected sex. If it had been introduced into the redneck-honkey tonk community or the prostitution community, that's where it would have skyrocketed.... and did.
The likelyhood of coming from human/ape sexual encounters has been all but completely dismissed. All it did was give the self-righteous bigots a foothold to become the horrible, nasty people they are today

www.avert.org...

First post here - very long time lurker, but never commented.

I felt compelled to finally register and create an account because I wanted to clarify something that hasn't really been brought forward in this particular thread just yet.

Full disclosure - I am 33 and a gay male.

That said, the problem - as I see it, and I don't represent anyone but myself here - is that I pay taxes. I'm a citizen. I can be drafted to serve in the military. (Well, I'm getting a little old for that, but I hope I'm conveying the point.) The argument that gay people should not get married because "then they can marry animals, next" isn't really relevant because my dog doesn't pay taxes. (She's also not terribly attractive, but that's another note entirely.)

I am required to abide by the same laws as everyone else, yet I'm not guaranteed the same freedoms as everyone else. I miss out on tax benefits, retirement benefits, actual financial issues that as a citizen I'm federally entitled to receive.

This gets back to the point of the original post - this is an issue where conservatives should logically side with gay marriage - the government is basically discriminating against a group of it's own tax paying citizens based merely on who they go home to at the end of the day. "Big government getting out of the life of the everyday citizen" is an ages-old conservative talking point - in that regard, I believe that these two things go hand in hand.

On a separate but related note, I'm also a Christian. I don't raise that to begin some theological argument - I still firmly believe that passionate discussion about politics or religion should be conducted in person with people you actually know versus an Internet forum. I raise this point because I want it to be loud and clear that I have a spiritual investment in this discussion as well. (Again, please read - don't proselytize me. I'm uninterested in your personal judgments about my faith or my personal relationship with God - it's personal.) I do, however, believe that the government has no place in the church any more than the church has a place in the government. They are supposed to be separate - again, a longstanding conservative talking point, although this has more been from the angle of keeping the government out of the church.

Gay marriage is certainly an interesting issue, but when discussing this as it relates to politics or elections, I think it's important to remember that although we do have many Christians in the US, not every citizen is Christian. We aren't a Christian nation - our Constitution - which I've actually read - prohibits this. We are a "we the people," not a "We are the Christian people exclusively." As Christians, we should respect the rights of those who disagree with us, as much as we should be respected by those that disagree with our philosophies.

Marriage - as is currently being debated - is simply a legal institution. Male/female atheists can get "married" in a courthouse - it's not a religious ceremony. Laws allowing gays to marry does not mean that a church will be forced to hold a service - that's the separation of church and state. A church shouldn't be required to have a marriage ceremony for anyone it doesn't want to marry, period. It doesn't mean that those who oppose gay marriage will have to "like" it. It simply means that as a citizen, and one that pays a LOT of money in taxes per year, I am entitled to the same rights as another citizen whose sexuality is different than my own.

Marriage was not created by the church. There was marriage in ancient times. And in fact it was the Catholic Church who first defined marriage as being between a man and a woman in the 6th century. In other words, it was just co-opted by religion, like religion does everything else.

Originally posted by IndigoRing
First post here - very long time lurker, but never commented.

I felt compelled to finally register and create an account because I wanted to clarify something that hasn't really been brought forward in this particular thread just yet.

Full disclosure - I am 33 and a gay male.

That said, the problem - as I see it, and I don't represent anyone but myself here - is that I pay taxes. I'm a citizen. I can be drafted to serve in the military. (Well, I'm getting a little old for that, but I hope I'm conveying the point.) The argument that gay people should not get married because "then they can marry animals, next" isn't really relevant because my dog doesn't pay taxes. (She's also not terribly attractive, but that's another note entirely.)

I am required to abide by the same laws as everyone else, yet I'm not guaranteed the same freedoms as everyone else. I miss out on tax benefits, retirement benefits, actual financial issues that as a citizen I'm federally entitled to receive.

This gets back to the point of the original post - this is an issue where conservatives should logically side with gay marriage - the government is basically discriminating against a group of it's own tax paying citizens based merely on who they go home to at the end of the day. "Big government getting out of the life of the everyday citizen" is an ages-old conservative talking point - in that regard, I believe that these two things go hand in hand.

On a separate but related note, I'm also a Christian. I don't raise that to begin some theological argument - I still firmly believe that passionate discussion about politics or religion should be conducted in person with people you actually know versus an Internet forum. I raise this point because I want it to be loud and clear that I have a spiritual investment in this discussion as well. (Again, please read - don't proselytize me. I'm uninterested in your personal judgments about my faith or my personal relationship with God - it's personal.) I do, however, believe that the government has no place in the church any more than the church has a place in the government. They are supposed to be separate - again, a longstanding conservative talking point, although this has more been from the angle of keeping the government out of the church.

Gay marriage is certainly an interesting issue, but when discussing this as it relates to politics or elections, I think it's important to remember that although we do have many Christians in the US, not every citizen is Christian. We aren't a Christian nation - our Constitution - which I've actually read - prohibits this. We are a "we the people," not a "We are the Christian people exclusively." As Christians, we should respect the rights of those who disagree with us, as much as we should be respected by those that disagree with our philosophies.

Marriage - as is currently being debated - is simply a legal institution. Male/female atheists can get "married" in a courthouse - it's not a religious ceremony. Laws allowing gays to marry does not mean that a church will be forced to hold a service - that's the separation of church and state. A church shouldn't be required to have a marriage ceremony for anyone it doesn't want to marry, period. It doesn't mean that those who oppose gay marriage will have to "like" it. It simply means that as a citizen, and one that pays a LOT of money in taxes per year, I am entitled to the same rights as another citizen whose sexuality is different than my own.

Truthfully, you should stop paying taxes all together and cite the "No Taxation without representation" concept that the original tea party used 200 years ago (and today's tea party likes to chant even though it doesn't apply to them...they don't know the difference because they're not terribly bright). If you aren't entitled to the same rights and privileges, why should you be expected to bear the same responsibilities?

Originally posted by IndigoRing


On a separate but related note, I'm also a Christian. I don't raise that to begin some theological argument - I still firmly believe that passionate discussion about politics or religion should be conducted in person with people you actually know versus an Internet forum. I raise this point because I want it to be loud and clear that I have a spiritual investment in this discussion as well. (Again, please read - don't proselytize me. I'm uninterested in your personal judgments about my faith or my personal relationship with God - it's personal.) I do, however, believe that the government has no place in the church any more than the church has a place in the government. They are supposed to be separate - again, a longstanding conservative talking point, although this has more been from the angle of keeping the government out of the church.

Thank you for stating you are Christian.

I am straight and an atheist. But this has been a 20 year support fight for me - - after working at a company where I was the minority being straight.

In my support - - I try to mention that many gays are Christian too - - and not only want Legal Marriage - - but the full wedding experience in the eyes of their god.

There are many good supportive people who are Christian.

They need to join together and stand up in their churches - - in front of their pastor/minister - - until he/she also takes a stand in support of Marriage Rights.

Its unfortunate the Fundamental Christian Right - - - (same group that denied black people rights) - - - has such influence over so many.

The government is taking a stand - - its just not going to happen over night.

Originally posted by lme7898354
The issue of gay marriage shows how powerful lobbyists can take such an absurb idea and try to present it as a human rights issue. First of all marriage was created by the church as a way for a family have children that beared their name. I don't care what you do in your home but don't try and make the gay lifestyle out to be nomal and something everybody should embrace.

If the gay lifestyle was so great then why have thousands of innocent victims died while receiving tainted blood from donors who have aids, and where did aids come from? A man having sex with monkies in Africa.

First, no one is asking you to embrace the gay lifestyle. Those who practice just want to be free to do so without having to feel ashamed or embarassed. I think that is well within their right.

How you draw a connection between the first and second paragraphs is beyond me. Since when did monkey sex equate to gay sex? Bestiality is not by any stretch of the imagination comparable to homosexual activities.

If you would like to draw a connection based on sexual deviancy then I would like to point out that homosexual acts are not uncommon enough to even be considered deviant. If you want to draw a religious connection to the sexual deviancy part then I would draw your attention to various religions with guidlines to committing bestiality. I would also like to draw your attention to mastubration which is considered a deviant act by the bible and yet practiced by just about evey person on the planet.

reply to post by IndigoRing


Thank you.

Very well stated.

It is true that we are tax payers and we should be entitled to the same rights as tax payers. How people draw a connection between inter-species sexual activity and same-species sexual activity is still beyond me though. Its certainly not comparing apples to apples, or apples to oranges for that matter. As a matter of fact it's more like comparing apples to broccoli.

reply to post by LightInside


Agreed wholeheartedly, and again, "marriage" as a legal contract is non-religious. "Marriage" as a ceremony in a church is something that many gay people do not want, and frankly, as a gay guy, I don't think the church should *have* to do. I'd be happy getting married legally but not having a church ceremony.

And to bring it all full circle, and to stick to the topic at hand - which MANY on here aren't doing too well, frankly - this is one of those instances where a conservative should support this argument. It is about the government protecting the rights of its citizens and protecting equality.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by IndigoRing

.

Snip.

Its unfortunate the Fundamental Christian Right - - - (same group that denied black people rights) - - - has such influence over so many.

What's really so unfortunate is that you cannot understand where your OWN beliefs come from

1963 US Congressional Record
45 Current Communist Goals

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
 
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
 
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
 
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
 
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
 
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
 
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
www.rense.com...

That was 1963, a mere 50 years ago. If you truly think that your thoughts are your own, and that somehow you are "enlightened" because of the beliefs that you hold, perhaps some contemplation needs to be done on your part as to the source of your beliefs. Let's put it this way, they are not from God. In fact, they are from the evilness of men's hearts that needed you separated from the God of your forefathers in order to bring us to the end of the Age. So whilst you may believe that the "fundamentalist Christian" holds such sway, you couldn't be more farther from truth. The above clearly demonstrates that your beliefs were indoctrinated into you to bring us to today, and yet you are not aware of it.

The Christian homosexual above should know the above if He is a Christian, as he should be very well versed in the power of the mind and lusts of the flesh from scripture. He should also be very well versed in why sexual immorality as preached to our youngsters, as well as the love of sinful behaviours, leads one spiritually away from the one whom he professes to worship. He should also be very knowledgeable as to the rampant sexual immorality in his community and the judgement that God gave many over to, yet there is no mention of the for ed indoctrination of our children to consider his lifestyle as normal and healthy. But I note, he says none of this but argues his case on the grounds of financial equality. So is money now considered more important than truth? If he's a Christian, he knows what the issues are and why you have been indoctrinated to believe what you do and the time in which we live. As a Christian, he would be well aware that sin not only hardens the heart towards God, but that God Himself will harden the heart of rebellious people, But again, silence.

You are powerless to fight the enemies of God - evil men (not a reference to the gentleman in question) - if you cannot see that they already taught you everything that they needed to, and now you fight for them.

 

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by kaylaluv
That's because heterosexual people haven't been discriminated against because of their heterosexuality.

If homosexuals achievements are taught as gay achievements yet heterosexual achievements are not taught as such, surely it is heterosexuals who are now being discriminated against?

You ought to change your avatar to a picture of a kitty cat because youre a total pussy.

Originally posted by IndigoRing
reply to post by LightInside

 

Agreed wholeheartedly, and again, "marriage" as a legal contract is non-religious. "Marriage" as a ceremony in a church is something that many gay people do not want, and frankly, as a gay guy, I don't think the church should *have* to do. I'd be happy getting married legally but not having a church ceremony.

And to bring it all full circle, and to stick to the topic at hand - which MANY on here aren't doing too well, frankly - this is one of those instances where a conservative should support this argument. It is about the government protecting the rights of its citizens and protecting equality.

Churches will never be forced to marry anyone from the LGBTQO community - - EVER. Some churches won't marry divorced people. The church has the right to say NO to anyone. They don't even have to give a reason. It is part of the Religious Freedom in the Constitution.

Fundamentalists is the only group that tries to use this FALSE argument.

There are many churches and religious groups more then willing to marry gays the second it becomes legal.

I know there is a gay Catholic church in Los Angeles. Of course the priest was excommunicated - - - but he doesn't care. He says - many lose their family - everything they've known all their lives when they "come out or are found out" - - - why should they lose their god too?

For some - god/religion is a part of who you are. Why should you have to give that up just because you are gay?

I'm Atheist. But maybe for some - - god is the only constant from their lives they can hold on to. And they should. They should be able to do that - - - - in churches that are accepting. Of which there are many.

BUT - - NO ONE is forcing churches to marry gays. That's just a "crock" defensive argument with no basis of truth.

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

LEGAL Marriage on the other hand is - - - a contract. A Legal Government Contract of protection and rights - - - that needs to be available to any couple who chooses it.

Originally posted by Funshinez

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by kaylaluv
That's because heterosexual people haven't been discriminated against because of their heterosexuality.

If homosexuals achievements are taught as gay achievements yet heterosexual achievements are not taught as such, surely it is heterosexuals who are now being discriminated against?

You ought to change your avatar to a picture of a kitty cat because you're a total pussy.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha

OK OK - - I know you're not supposed to post frivolous - congratulatory comments.

But - PRICELESS!