Let's Revoke The Rights and Protections Awarded to Heterosexual Married Couples

Originally posted by whyamIhere
I think all "Gay" people should be married.

After 25 years, come and tell me how much fun you had.

If you love someone...Do you even care what the state thinks?

Be careful what you wish for...You just might get some of this bliss...

Incredible postt, succint and infallible

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

I agree. However, this has been part of many governments for quite a long time now. Let's see if those who are against gay marriage agree with us, that no couple need ask permission nor receive special status for deciding to marry the person they love.

Well, I can't say I'm against gay marriage, but I don't think government should be involved with it one way or another.

From my end, marriage is a religious institution acknowledging a commitment before god - not a political one. But for any who want to unite themselves otherwise before the community, well and good.

In short, get Caesar out of what is God's (this being one reason I refuse to marry at this point - I will not submit to rendering unto Caesar the things that are God's by way of applying for a marriage "permit") - or otherwise at the very least, what is definitely not Casear's regardless. Let people align, contract, and unify as they will, and respect that. Unless someone's trying to do it to you against your will, shut up about it already.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Every society has and every society will discriminate against some, make choices at the expense of some, and generally exclude them from regular participation in that society. Each society has the choice of who those people are to be discriminated against. You do not have the freedom from discrimination; period. Freedom takes a back seat to more important values such as truth, loyalty, obedience, and charity. If society must suppress certain elements, depriving them of particular freedoms, in accordance with a higher good, than so be it. This is the common theme of all sane nations not driven by the elevation of principles such as "liberty, equality, and fraternity".

Originally posted by Kali74
In the interest of equality and respect to religious beliefs, I think we should level the playing field. If in 'the Land of the Free' we cannot meet consensus to federally recognize Gay Marriage or Same Sex Unions then we should strike the balance with NO federally recognized marriages or unions. That is fair, right?

Is this the same as schools doing away with ALL student interest clubs - - - just to prevent an LGBT club?

What exactly does that solve?

Obviously you are aware that a ‘marriage’ is a religious institution (first line). Yet, you wish to ban something because it is unavailable to people who decide to live their lives outside this belief system.

The LBGTQ community deserves the same legal and financial rights as every other citizen – however the Constitution does not guarantee anyone’s right to any religious sacrament; as this is why we have a separation of ‘church and state’.

reply to post by ConspiracyBuff


So, I can have the same thing but I need to call it something else just to appease you? Sorry, but no.

reply to post by Misoir

Every society has and every society will discriminate against some, make choices at the expense of some, and generally exclude them from regular participation in that society. Each society has the choice of who those people are to be discriminated against.

This is true from a civil standpoint, but entirely false from a legal one.

You do not have the freedom from discrimination; period. Freedom takes a back seat to more important values such as truth, loyalty, obedience, and charity.

Sorry, but I do. Nothing is more important than having EQUAL treatment of individuals under the law. That's kind why we created republics, so that TYRANTS like kings and queens could not make themselves above the law.

What you are suggesting is feudalism.

Obedience, is more important than fairness under the law? That's quite the perspective you have there.

If society must suppress certain elements, depriving them of particular freedoms, in accordance with a higher good, than so be it. This is the common theme of all sane nations not driven by the elevation of principles such as "liberty, equality, and fraternity".

Where is it stated that we 'must' supress certani elements of people? Who is this higher good you speak of? What determines what is considered high good? Are you going to throw a religious argument at me?

IF you are, then, well you will fail to win this debate, because your argument is religious and emotional, therefore un-rational and moot.

My argument is that of fairness under the law. Which is actually the MOST important value ANY society can have. It's actually the founding idea for The United States and any other republic/democracy on the planet worth calling itself a nation.

Taking moral high ground in order to deny some, what others have is nonsense. This concept is only applicate to things that are actually harmful to society, like murder or rape.

Same sex marriage has absolutely 0 effect upon anybody, except for those who choose to make it an issue within themselves.

~Tenth

reply to post by ConspiracyBuff


Yes, and that is why marriage should not be the measure for dependency. Remove the focus from marriage and to a more fair system where everyone benefits.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

It should have left this up to the states.

Please explain why it should be left up to the states.

And don't tell me because its currently Constitutional.

reply to post by Kali74


I have been speaking out against marriage licenses for quite a long time now.

It's nice that the truth is finally coming out into the open.

If you want to know my in depth comments on the subject, my historical analysis, etc, google for these terms
" Abovetopsecret muzzleflash marriage license".

I have clearly indicated that marriage licenses are unconstitutional methods of discrimination as that was their original purpose in the United States legal history.

The only way to eliminate this discrimination is to ABOLISH government marriage licensing 100%.
That way we can get the church out of the state, and uphold equal rights for all peoples.

I have gone into depth and answered many criticisms or questions aptly so I highly suggest looking up my earlier comments and deliberations on the subject.

As a heterosexual married woman (i.e., wife), I could care less if you revoke the "rights and protections awarded" to me and my husband via the government.

Ours is a union that is created by us, and honored by our God, hallowed be named.

It is based on spirituality, love, peace, and all that is still good in this world.

Unfortunately, this plan of revocation, if implemented, will take the U.S. (if that is where you're from) down a path of severe negative social and economic consequences as almost the bulk of children reside with heterosexual married/divorced couples. In many other instances, we see the problems faced by kids in unmarried single homes.

But, I almost forgot, an entitlement society, with more government dependence is the way to go now, isn't it?


I wish we lived in Utopia but you really can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
ETA: A Conservative, would never argue for more rights than anybody else.

Really? So I guess all the founders of Conservatism did not have a darn clue of what they were talking about. You obviously surpass them in their own establish philosophy, we should all listen to you for wisdom and advice on how to be better Conservatives. Read a book by the founders of Conservatism some day, you might learn something. Here, you know what, I will even get you started:

Joseph de Maistre - Essay on the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions
Edmund Burke - Reflections on the Revolution in France
Juan Donoso Cortes - Essays on Liberalism, Socialism, and Catholicism

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

It should have left this up to the states.

Please explain why it should be left up to the states.

And don't tell me because its currently Constitutional.

The states like the federal government have NO AUTHORITY to regulate or license religious practices specifically marriage.

This authority is left up to individual humans to make their own choices and the government has no recourse but to stay the hell out of it.

reply to post by tamusan


I'm not against gay marriage what so ever, I'm just sick of people acting like there on some moral high ground fighting for peoples rights to love each other, when in truth it's all about money and kick backs.

reply to post by Annee


Because the Federal Government has no business creating legal contracts between anybody but itself and the state.

THe state should deal with all things regarding citizens, including all legal contracts.

Having the word Federal in front of another word, liek marriage licence, is nonsense.

Things would operate much smoother if the states were left to make their own decisions, as was the intent.

~Tenth

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

It should have left this up to the states.

Please explain why it should be left up to the states.

And don't tell me because its currently Constitutional.

The states like the federal government have NO AUTHORITY to regulate or license religious practices specifically marriage.

This authority is left up to individual humans to make their own choices and the government has no recourse but to stay the hell out of it.

How does that answer my question?

My question has nothing to do with removing marriage from government.

This is about EQUAL as things stand today.

For what good reason do states get to determine who can marry and who can not?

reply to post by Praetorius

but I don't think government should be involved with it one way or another.

But the government is involved, the federal government awards marriage between a man and woman with Rights and Privileges that no one else has. Either that needs to stop or it needs to include any two adults that wish to tie their lives together in such a way. You sort of sidestepped the point of the thread.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by ConspiracyBuff

 

So, I can have the same thing but I need to call it something else just to appease you? Sorry, but no.

Um yes, a civil union is what the LBGTQ community would utilize to receive the legal and financial rights available through marriage, because the Constitution does not guarantee any religious sacrament. If I wanted to get married tomorrow most likely I could not because I do not currently belong to any church and most pastors/priests whatever, only marry people in their church. Stop confusing marriage with a civil union. I do however have a much better chance of getting a civil union tomorrow if a judge is available.

Old Man Waterfall: That's right, I'm a polygamist. Yet I would gladly eat a flag myself, had I not used my intestine as a rope to hoist a flag made of my own skin, if it would protect the freedoms of the proud people who salute that flag. Freedom such as polygamy.

Crowd: Boo!

Judge: Also, in a rare double whammy decision, the court finds polygamy constitutional.

Crowd: Boo!

Old Man Waterfall: I can't wait to tell my husband!

Crowd: BOOO!!!

Old Man Waterfall: I request a Satanic funeral!

Crowd: BOOO!!!

theinfosphere.org...

Do the rights of a polygamist count?

What about a satanist?

Go Misoir

reply to post by zonetripper2065


I'm not against Gay in any way. Despite being fully heterosexual. I am against anything that discriminate against someones who is not hurting someone else.