• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

First black tea baggers, now gay tea baggers, somewhere a liberals head is exploding

dammitgibs said:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.co...o-come-out-as-conservative-than-as-gay-video/


What surprised me most about this is that I actually agree with their stance on gay marriage, and I totally thought I wouldn't. Their idea that everyone has civil unions, gay or straight, and then what you call marriage is between you and your church, that government has no involvement in your marriage reflects my ideals.
Click to expand...
Yeah what if a Church allows gay Marriage? I guess it could be called Marriage using your logic
 
What's new about gay tea baggers?
BTW, the civil unions for everyone thing is OK with liberals. I don't really care what churches or people call marriage, there is no reason for government to care. From government's POV it's just a civil union contract.
 
Red Dawn said:
Yeah what if a Church allows gay Marriage? I guess it could be called Marriage using your logic
Click to expand...

They can call it whatever they want, and if a church wants to marry a man and his turtle they can do that too, who cares? The point is why should the government be involved in that, just issue civil unions as a sort of legal agreement between people. If I'm a hetero male and I want to enter into a civil union with my hetero best buddy from college then I can do that too.
 
dammitgibs said:
They can call it whatever they want, and if a church wants to marry a man and his turtle they can do that too, who cares? The point is why should the government be involved in that, just issue civil unions as a sort of legal agreement between people. If I'm a hetero male and I want to enter into a civil union with my hetero best buddy from college then I can do that too.
Click to expand...
Why should a Religious institution have domain over marriage? My wife and I were married by a judge. I'm as married as any Bible thumper married by a minister or priest without the added baggage of what I personally consider archaic beliefs and traditions.
 
Red Dawn said:
Why should a Religious institution have domain over marriage? My wife and I were married by a judge. I'm as married as any Bible thumper married by a minister or priest without the added baggage of what I personally consider archaic beliefs and traditions.
Click to expand...

imo there should be no benefits or disadvantages to being married. the government should treat people as single entities regardless of any social union.
 
Red Dawn said:
Why should a Religious institution have domain over marriage? My wife and I were married by a judge. I'm as married as any Bible thumper married by a minister or priest without the added baggage of what I personally consider archaic beliefs and traditions.
Click to expand...

Ok fine it doesn't have to be a religious institution, if you want your fraternity to marry you then have a nut. The point is that marriage isn't controlled by anyone, it doesn't mean anything to anyone unless you want it to.
 
dammitgibs said:
Ok fine it doesn't have to be a religious institution, if you want your fraternity to marry you then have a nut. The point is that marriage isn't controlled by anyone, it doesn't mean anything to anyone unless you want it to.
Click to expand...
Then why are those like you insistent on calling it a Civil Union if it's between a Gay Couple?
 
Red Dawn said:
Then why are those like you insistent on calling it a Civil Union if it's between a Gay Couple?
Click to expand...

images

What do you mean YOU people?

I'm not insistent on calling it anything, if a gay couple tells me that they're married then I will refer to them as being married.
 
The government most certainly has a vested interest in marriages, especially between a man and a woman. It promoted family building and reproduction. All needed for a healthy society.

Look at Japan and the steps that government is taking to try and promote its population to breed with eachother and not tentacles.
 
bfdd said:
well single people aren't treated equally compared to married people by the government. seems like a huge fucking flaw to me.
Click to expand...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with dfdd, marriage carries with in a powerful set of rights and social obligations
that in turn promote social stability.

Regardless if the marriage can produce children or not, all forms of marriage promote social stability. So why restrict marriage to only the politically correct?
 
Nintendesert said:
The government most certainly has a vested interest in marriages, especially between a man and a woman. It promoted family building and reproduction. All needed for a healthy society.

Look at Japan and the steps that government is taking to try and promote its population to breed with eachother and not tentacles.
Click to expand...

You obviously know nothing of the joys of octopussy.
 
Nintendesert said:
The government most certainly has a vested interest in marriages, especially between a man and a woman. It promoted family building and reproduction. All needed for a healthy society.

Look at Japan and the steps that government is taking to try and promote its population to breed with eachother and not tentacles.
Click to expand...

If the goal of marriage is reproductive, should post-menopausal women be allowed to marry? If it's family building without reproduction, then why do you care if it's same or opposite genders?
 
Lemon law said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with dfdd, marriage carries with in a powerful set of rights and social obligations
that in turn promote social stability.

Regardless if the marriage can produce children or not, all forms of marriage promote social stability. So why restrict marriage to only the politically correct?
Click to expand...

I'd just rather see all of those special rights for married couples removed period. I'd prefer the government treat us all as single entities. I mean what if someone doesn't want to be married we shouldn't be treated the same? Kind of ridiculous, although I do recognize the benefits of marriage to a society.
 
dammitgibs said:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.co...o-come-out-as-conservative-than-as-gay-video/


What surprised me most about this is that I actually agree with their stance on gay marriage, and I totally thought I wouldn't. Their idea that everyone has civil unions, gay or straight, and then what you call marriage is between you and your church, that government has no involvement in your marriage reflects my ideals.
Click to expand...

Um, they are just part of another group gay people who want to abolish state marriage altogether.

I'm perfectly OK with either. Gay Marriage or No Marriage. As far as the state is concerned.
 
bfdd said:
well single people aren't treated equally compared to married people by the government. seems like a huge fucking flaw to me.
Click to expand...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it discrimination when single people opt out of the rights and OBLIGATIONS that marriage entails?

After all, love is grand, divorce is a 100 grand. But if you opt out of marriage and produce a child, the unmarried male is in a far better position to be a cad and a bounder, thus dumping their responsibilities on the female and a larger society. That is not social stability to be rewarded in single people. So why should a larger society reward rolling stones that make no commitments?
 
Red Dawn said:
Yeah what if a Church allows gay Marriage? I guess it could be called Marriage using your logic
Click to expand...


Exactly right (well, except the word would be "would" instead of "could").

The government does not belong in the "marriage" business. If it wants to afford special rights through civil unions then so be it but religions should be left up to deciding who gets the religious crap.
 
Lemon law said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it discrimination when single people opt out of the rights and OBLIGATIONS that marriage entails?

After all, love is grand, divorce is a 100 grand. But if you opt out of marriage and produce a child, the unmarried male is in a far better position to be a cad and a bounder, thus dumping their responsibilities on the female and a larger society. That is not social stability to be rewarded in single people. So why should a larger society reward rolling stones that make no commitments?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with what you're saying about dead beat dads, but a lot of guys who fall in that category don't exactly deserve it. Not to mention we already have things in place to go after those kind of people or have you not seen how over zealous some states can be when it comes to child support?
 
I'm all in favor of government getting out of the marriage business and issuing only civil unions, leaving marriage to the churches (several of which have no problem marrying gays.) What I DON'T want is civil unions for gays and marriage for normals, creating two separate bodies of law that will inevitably begin diverging. I really, really want this debate to be over, and separate but equal just means the battle goes on.
 
Red Dawn said:
Why should a Religious institution have domain over marriage? My wife and I were married by a judge. I'm as married as any Bible thumper married by a minister or priest without the added baggage of what I personally consider archaic beliefs and traditions.
Click to expand...

Instead, in the eyes of the government, you would be as "civil unioned" as any bible thumper with archaic beliefs and traditions. Whats the problem again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top