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

[dammitgibs]

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.

 

[Red Dawn]

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.

Yeah what if a Church allows gay Marriage? I guess it could be called Marriage using your logic

 

[theeedude]

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.

 

[dammitgibs]

Yeah what if a Church allows gay Marriage? I guess it could be called Marriage using your logic

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.

 

[Red Dawn]

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.

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.

 

[bfdd]

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.

imo there should be no benefits or disadvantages to being married. the government should treat people as single entities regardless of any social union.

 

[dammitgibs]

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.

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.

 

[Red Dawn]

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.

Then why are those like you insistent on calling it a Civil Union if it's between a Gay Couple?

 

[Tristicus]

My head is exploding.

 

[squirrel dog]

A dark , gay , Tea Party person . Whoed a tunk it .

 

[dammitgibs]

Then why are those like you insistent on calling it a Civil Union if it's between a Gay Couple?

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.

 

[JSt0rm]

imo there should be no benefits or disadvantages to being married. the government should treat people as single entities regardless of any social union.

lmao. good luck with that one.

 

[Lemon law]

This liberal head is not exploding, is that what is bugging you boopsie?

 

[Nintendesert]

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]

lmao. good luck with that one.

well single people aren't treated equally compared to married people by the government. seems like a huge fucking flaw to me.

 

[Lemon law]

well single people aren't treated equally compared to married people by the government. seems like a huge fucking flaw to me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

You obviously know nothing of the joys of octopussy.

 

[theeedude]

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.

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?

 

[bfdd]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

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.

 

[MJinZ]

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.

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.

 

[Lemon law]

well single people aren't treated equally compared to married people by the government. seems like a huge fucking flaw to me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

 

[Darwin333]

Yeah what if a Church allows gay Marriage? I guess it could be called Marriage using your logic

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.

 

[bfdd]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

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?

 

[werepossum]

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.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

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?