Marriage is NOT a Constitutional Right!

Traditionally marriage is between a man and a woman. There should be no government involvement in it really. There also should be no benefit for getting married.

Any government perk for being married should be abolished. state and federal

There should be separation of church and state where the state cannot tell the church who they can or cannot marry.

The decision whether homosexuals should or should not marry should be a church decision. Which if they follow the "christian" teachings there is no backing for it.

If the monetary perks are taken out and the benefits are taken out do homosexuals still want to be married??

If so why do they want to be married so bad that they want to fundamentally change an institution they care about so much. I say they care about it so much since they care enough to be married through a church.

If the state is taken out of it there really is no quarrel unless this is further intrusion of the state on the church.

I don't think gays should be married through a church simply based on my religious beliefs, there are no provisions for that kind of marriage. If the government wants to make same sex couples have the same benefits as married couples they can.

but I have more a bone to pick with government being involved in marriage. Soon it will be involved in how to rear my kids and how I can procreate.

why is government involved in marriage?? I just do not get it. I have gay friends I really do not care about their preferences. i do not get it but it is their life.

why does every single social issue need government intervention?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

that most fundies lack an understanding of the term "consent".

Perhaps so do members of NAMBLA.

It had to be said. Sorry.

Can always count on the same ignorant rebuttals..."blah blah blah BESTIALITY!" "Blah blah blah pedophilia!" "blah blah blah christianity!"....

It had to be said? Seriously? An ignorant comparison like that HAD TO BE SAID?

Well, look Capn, NAMBLA is lobbying for it, so what's the problem you have with me pointing it out as a logical next step?
People are pushing for some of the oddest stuff. Can I help it if people are pushing the envelope on family relations? You doubt this is really happening, or you just use it as a strawman argument to bash conservatives?

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors,[2][3] and for the release of all men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.[2][4] Some reports state that the group no longer has regular national meetings, and that as of the late 1990s, to avoid local police infiltration, the organization discouraged the formation of local chapters.[

NAMBLA's website states that it is a political, civil rights, and educational organization whose goal is to end "the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships."[9] According to the NAMBLA, some of the organization's primary positions are:

Supporting and promoting man/boy relationships: they hold that when consensual these relationships are not harmful or child sexual abuse.[10] One study they cite is the controversial Rind et al. paper.[11]
Age-of-consent reform: what NAMBLA describes as "empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual."[9]

en.wikipedia.org...

So yes, while their numbers are quite a bit smaller than the general population, it is still an activity. Do not forget that some individuals who were members at one time were also members of the COMMUNIST PARTY!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Why it's not a logical next step is because boys are not adults. You make the same BIGOTED logical fallacy that's been made millions of times and it isn't any less asinine the million of times +1.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.

Slippery slopes are bad mmmmkay.

Again, children, animals, broomsticks, carburetors from a '65 Dodge, and Krispy Kreme doughnuts... all things that cannot morally or legally engage in informed consent. Adults CAN engage in informed consent.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


OMG Not the Commies!!!! how dare they

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus



Same stupid argument that people try to bring up every single time, and its never had any merit. As I said before, seems you and so many other anti-gay-marriage mouthpieces have no concept of the term "consent".

I mean really, just downright silly.

Originally posted by SamaraTen

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by SamaraTen

 

Then what gives people the right to marriage and how does it affect the legal agreement between them? You can't extend special privileges to a group of people simply because they are a majority and you can't strip other citizens of rights afforded everyone else because they are in a minority. Marriage is a civil right which the Constitution guarantees everyone of us gay or straight.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.

So, i guess you could say "Civil Rights" protects people from discrimination and hate crimes. Still not sure what Civil Rights has to do with "marriage"?

Marriage is the ONLY expression of love and commitment that is legally recognized in our society and some people (you?) are trying to deny the right based on GENDER (and sexual orientation.) Who are you to say when insane, incompetent and deceitful people are allowed that RIGHT while other, law abiding, sane and healthy people are not?

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Why it's not a logical next step is because boys are not adults. You make the same BIGOTED logical fallacy that's been made millions of times and it isn't any less asinine the million of times +1.

Bigoted? I think you need a dictionary. But what's new? You won't even take the dictionary definition of Socialism/Communism.

For historical reference on Communist Subversion let's have a look at Harry Hay

The man who conceived and was a principal figure in the founding of the first Mattachine society, Harry Hay, here for the first time details the early history of that homosexual emancipation organization. Because of Hay's eighteen-year Communist party membership and activity, his role as a founding father of the American homosexual liberation movement has not before been told. In an interview recorded by Jonathan Ned Katz on March 31, 1974, and in a long correspondence referring to original documents of the period, Henry Hay recounted his version of the conception and founding of the Los Angeles Mattachine.

www.outhistory.org...:_Founding_the_Mattachine_Society,_1948-1953

Lest you are wondering about the link to Communist subversion, Harry Hay is it, he was a card carrying Communist and worried about Communists being ejected from Hollywood and govt.

H.H.: The anti-Communist witch-hunts were very much in operation; the House Un-American Activities Committee had investigated Communist "subversion" in Hollywood. The purge of homosexuals from the State Department took place
Here's more on subversive activities

So-called liberationists, for instance, “hope that gay marriage will help knock marriage off its cultural pedestal altogether,” Douthat writes. The “liberationists” want marriage to be one of many equally viable “lifestyle choices,” none of which enjoy a privileged social, legal and cultural status.

But what Douthat doesn’t quite say, but clearly spells out nonetheless, is how, even with the best of intentions, relatively conservative gay men can still seriously undermine the institution of marriage. They undermine the institution of marriage when they seek to redefine the rules and meaning of marriage to better accommodate promiscuous and polyamorous relationships.

spectator.org...

And what does it say in the Communist Manifesto? It says clearly that the Bourgeois family must be abolished.

Here is the ideology and methodology

Political subversion is typically when you demoralize, destabilize, economically and societally shatter a nation in order to put the pieces back together in a configuration more amenable to the subverter. Contrary to popular conception, it is not a formless art conducted in the shadows. In free societies, it can easily be carried out in the open.

It has been the goal of authoritarian countries like Russia and China during the entire post-World War II era to facilitate (not necessarily orchestrate) the ideological subversion of the United States.
Why? Because both countries acknowledge freedom and capitalism to be superior to dictatorship and command economy; but neither want to relinquish authoritarian control over their peoples. Both states have used world bodies, and particularly the United Nations, as a means to erode the sovereignty of America in the world and Americans’ influence over their own government. All the while, they have undermined the economic and military strengths that make America so formidable.

The “communists” (who call themselves anything but communists) have sought to achieve this end through aiding and abetting self-destructive political ideology. The subverters of America, as it was founded, can be referred to as the political left.
What are the goals of the political left? To capture the Democrat party; to neuter, destroy or co-opt the Republican party; to turn the United States into a single party socialist democracy; and to implement a “global transformation” from a capitalist order to an internationalist-fascist “new world order” where America can be sucked dry like marrow from a bone.

www.conservativedailynews.com...

So yes, the next step in a Communist subversive act of destroying the bourgeois family and institution of marriage in the US would be gay marriage/marriage to boys. Perhaps that is the vision Harry Hay originally had.

edit on 27-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


More logical fallacy. There's no differing opinion of the the definition for the word bigot.

You're are stating that if gays are allowed federally recognized marriage then the next step is pedophiles marrying their victims... you're equating homosexuality to pedophilia.

That is BIGOTRY.

And reading your edited post... I really wish I wasn't bound by T&C's.

I think someone needs to be deprogrammed or medicated.

reply to post by Hefficide


You can choose to marry someone of the opposite gender. You can choose not to get married at all and avoid this whole mess. Some say you can even choose to be straight. You can't choose your race. We're talking about less than 5% of the population here and of that, how many even care? This is absolutely nothing of the scale of the civil rights movement. There are no "gays only" schools or water fountains. Gays are not being pushed to the back of the bus. Gays are not being assaulted and killed.

If it were on that scale, I would agree. It's simply not. And it IS a non issue especially when our country is about to implode.

reply to post by Theimp


Gays are not being attacked or killed?

www.pbs.org...

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by Theimp

 

Gays are not being attacked or killed?

www.pbs.org...

On the same scale as the civil rights movement? Are crosses being burned on their lawn? Are they being assaulted as soon as they leave their house?

All I'm saying here is that as Americans we need to get our priorities straight. Is this something that should be changed? Sure. Does it need to be done right now when we're 16 trillion dollars in debt, stuck in 3 wars, double-digit unemployment, a failing education system, etc. etc.?

Americans refuse to speak up on any of the above issues, but they will sit outside on a lawn for 2 weeks to protest gay marriage.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by SamaraTen

 

Then what gives people the right to marriage and how does it affect the legal agreement between them? You can't extend special privileges to a group of people simply because they are a majority and you can't strip other citizens of rights afforded everyone else because they are in a minority. Marriage is a civil right which the Constitution guarantees everyone of us gay or straight.

Does that mean that if I want to marry say ....a horse I can do so under your reasoning?

I dont have a dog in this fight, but it seems those who are in favor of gay marriage are blinded to some facts about the world.

Fact, marriage throughout all of human history has existed in every culture I am aware of. In all these instances, it is also, uniformly throughout all of these cultures, and throughout all of recorded history been excessively between 1 man and 1 woman.

Just because folks choose to live an alternative lifestyle, and choose to seek a relationship outside that long established norm, it doesnt entile them to special allotments under the law.

It is the gay community, and supporters of the gay lifestyle that are attempting to change the definition of one of mans oldest, and most respected institutions.

Over 99.999% of the people on this planet at present, and from as far back as there is written record disagree, and should not be forced to recognise the wants of a fringe segment of the populous.

Yes I said fringe, as it is not the norm to be gay, nor is it acceptable to most of the peoples of the world, at present, or throughout history.

I understand why the gay community wants this, and I understand it is a matter of legality, especialky concerning benefits etc..

But it is not the rest of mans responsibility to violate one of mans oldest known customs, just to please a very very very small minority of folks that choose to live outside that same long establishex norm.

I think I should be able to do a lot of things I am not allowed to, my opinion is the minority opinion, so I must accept the wishes of the majority.

Is a horse a consenting adult?


And no...people who are fighting to deny homosexuals their rights are the ones "blind to the facts of the world" just the same as those people who were fighting to disallow marriage between the races based on color. You are not going to disallow marriage based on sexual orientation either. Not without an extended legal battle.

If you are going to go back to the origins of Marriage you may as well require some proof the woman is a virgin since back in the day, non-virgins did not even count. God would not bless such a blasphemy. I guess he changed His mind. LOL Convenient.

Throughout cultures, gays, along with minorities and women have existed on un-equal footing within societies and are always prey for the likes of bigots, misogynists and homophobes who are not only "accepted" but welcome members. In-equality is wrong. You learn that in kindergarten and even apes and Capuchin monkeys display an innate ability to determine fairness. Why can't we?
Gay isn't a "lifestyle." Hippie is a lifestyle. Gay is a gender identity and the identity of a human being, which can't be squashed or rubbed out because the rest of society doesn't like it any more than you can add or remove skin color. It is INSIDE.
You say..."it doesn't entitle them to special allotments under the law."
These aren't special entitlements. These are the same entitlements allowed any other couple getting ready to make a legally binding, lifetime commitment to each other get. Gays should have the same legal right to a legally binding commitment that other people do.

It isn't a group of gays and non gays trying to upset the marriage teakettle. It is people trying to make sure all other people have the same rights. If you are standing on the side trying to STOP people from guaranteeing others their civil rights, it might look like that to you though.

You don't have to "recognize" anything. You just have to allow "the existing laws" to recognize these couples like every other loving married couple. What does that even have to do with you, your family or your life? You are not sleeping in their beds are you?

Left handed people are a "fringe" group too. Shall we go back to what the Catholic Church wanted to do with them. Why don't we beat people into writing with their right hand any longer? We got smarter and realized this was not any action against the Church and good people might be left handed too. It is natural. We we learned better, we did better. Same here.

You say it has been unacceptable through out time. We used to think the world was flat too. Many Roman Emperors were gay. Where do you think those bathhouses came from.

reply to post by boymonkey74


You should go back and look around page 5 to 8 from last night,, then I see this exploded today, I was not shocked about her dismissal as I think she couldn't refrain from being a bit over the line. Nothing New to me,, I am just sad that people will not pull back and look at what they are saying sometimes. I feel if someone tells me something, even if I don't believe, I will listen to what they say and try to empathize,

It is getting harder to do so anymore, everyone WANTS TO be Polarized and divided.

I would prefer more unity about what connects us instead of what divides us.
Good to 'see' you again BoyMonkey74!
thanks

reply to post by Theimp


For what it's worth my posting history clearly shows that I've spoken up on those issues and others. Still I stand by my assertion that discrimination against any group, large or small, is contrary to the core tenets of freedom and represents an evil as great as any other.

If freedom is not equal for all then it is secure for none.

Originally posted by SamaraTen
The problem is that the gay community is not being deprived of "life, liberty, or property". Certainly not in this aspect

It has to do with States Rights, and the deprivation of property by a surviving member of a gay union. The Federal Govt. can't allow gays who've been legally married under the laws of their own state to have the same union rights as heterosexual spouses - tax status, survivor benefits, legal survivor custody of assets that are not located within that specific state, and a bunch of other "property" issues that are directly affected by DOMA.

It's enough that DOMA seeks to supersede the rights of states to regulate marriage, but the property issue is probably enough of a rights clash on its own.

Frankly, I see no reason for not allowing them to join in on the fun of marriage. Let them suffer like the rest of us.

Originally posted by Theimp

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by Theimp

 

Gays are not being attacked or killed?

www.pbs.org...

On the same scale as the civil rights movement? Are crosses being burned on their lawn? Are they being assaulted as soon as they leave their house?

All I'm saying here is that as Americans we need to get our priorities straight. Is this something that should be changed? Sure. Does it need to be done right now when we're 16 trillion dollars in debt, stuck in 3 wars, double-digit unemployment, a failing education system, etc. etc.?

Americans refuse to speak up on any of the above issues, but they will sit outside on a lawn for 2 weeks to protest gay marriage.

As if TPTB don't know this and have a horse in this fight called DOMA.

If and when gays and straights attain equal rights they WILL join together and finally start demanding action in Washington on issues like JOBS, the ECONOMY.

TPTB know that and this is just another in a long line of issues designed expressly to divide us from becoming a UNIFIED and powerful force against them.

If gays and straights were not attacking each other, they would join forces and attack CRIME.

Let's get it done and move on.

Originally posted by Theimp
reply to post by Hefficide

 

Gays are not being assaulted and killed.

Bull. Utter nonsense. Ive posted plenty of links in the past in response to this ridiculous claim.

I dont even know how to response to such a lie...as it shows that the person who holds this belief either has not been paying attention, or is a flat out liar...

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Theimp

 

For what it's worth my posting history clearly shows that I've spoken up on those issues and others. Still I stand by my assertion that discrimination against any group, large or small, is contrary to the core tenets of freedom and represents an evil as great as any other.

If freedom is not equal for all then it is secure for none.

Yup, or Hear here.
There is only one level of equality, anything else is bigotry.
Or, backwards non book learnin thinkin.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

More logical fallacy. There's no differing opinion of the the definition for the word bigot.

You're are stating that if gays are allowed federally recognized marriage then the next step is pedophiles marrying their victims... you're equating homosexuality to pedophilia.

That is BIGOTRY.

And reading your edited post... I really wish I wasn't bound by T&C's.

I think someone needs to be deprogrammed or medicated.

edit on 27-3-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

Your post is really not even worth the effort of responding to. It is too bad you do not have any idea about deprogramming. Clearly you feel that religious people require it. My post has nothing to do with religion.

It is about the methodology and ideology of Communist subversive tactics. As usual, in defense of your ideas, you insist on using the argument that pedophilia is a completely separate issue.

But please feel free to exercise lack of restraint in your response to me.

As far as people needing medication, cheap shot, probably about the cheapest I have ever seen here in two years.
I must have hit a nerve with the posting about Harry Hay being both a Communist and an advocate for pedophilia. Oh yes, Hay was atheist as well( I thought I would throw that in as well, since religion to you means guilt by association).
Hay was apparently not the only Communist to promote it. But Hay must have been too radical even for CPUSA. Or they may have just been embarrassed by him wearing skirts.

The original founders of the Mat­tachine Foundation were all either former CPUSA members or fellow travelers. The first step Hay took in organizing the Mattachine Foundation was to recommend to the CPUSA that he be expelled in 1951 after eighteen years as a member.

www.conservapedia.com...