GOP mute on Supreme Court cases regarding DOMA

[SMOGZINN]

So you are agreeing that opposition to same-sex marriage transcends religion.

I would say that it can transcend religion, it can come from bigotry and hate. Most of the time those two are born of religion, but I can see other avenues that they could come from, the most notable being ignorance and fear.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Oh and they want government benefits.

Although that is not actually an argument for same-sex marriage. That is an explanation for wanting it.

That was a stupid statement -- of course they want government benefits!! The same benefits that hetro sexual couples enjoy!! Why should they not be treated the same??

 

[JEDIYoda]

Or why Japan and China do not have same-sex marriage.

--- very old argument.....in fact a non - issue!!

 

[zsdersw]

Let's run down a couple of the weakest "arguments" against gay marriage:

"It will harm the institution of marriage!"

> Well, putting aside the seldom-justified hysteria that typically accompanies this "argument", no one has ever been able to specifically quantify the "harm" to anyone's existing or future marriage that would come from two strangers, who happen to be gay, getting married.

"Marriage has always been 'one man, one woman'. That's the way we've always done it"

> Ah yes.. the TTWWADI (pronounced 'twah-dee') excuse. Segregated schools and debtors' prisons were "the way we always did things", too. The wearing of nothing but cheap polyester was the way we did things. Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time doesn't mean it must always be done that way.

 

[Retro Rob]

I would say that it can transcend religion, it can come from bigotry and hate. Most of the time those two are born of religion, but I can see other avenues that they could come from, the most notable being ignorance and fear.

This is what I need to understand. "Fear" of what? No I am not an active opponent of SSM (meaning I don't fight against it period) nor do I endorse it. I stay the heck out of it.

But I just have to know after reading this post - what is there to fear? That gay is somehow "contagious?" Or that if its legalized here, I'm going to have to deal with gay people getting marriage licenses?

If I sound idiotic, I frankly care less - because I've never had anything to fear as a direct or indirect result of gay marriage or people. Does bother me either way, I'm not the one ruling on the issue, nor am I the one marrying gays.

Just never got this "fear" stuff, though.

 

[zsdersw]

But I just have to know after reading this post - what is there to fear? That gay is somehow "contagious?" Or that if its legalized here, I'm going to have to deal with gay people getting marriage licenses?

If I sound idiotic, I frankly care less - because I've never had anything to fear as a direct or indirect result of gay marriage or people. Does bother me either way, I'm not the one ruling on the issue, nor am I the one marrying gays.

Just never got this "fear" stuff, though.

There may be hope for you yet.

 

[nehalem256]

If by non-Christian countries you're including Islamic/Muslim countries, that's probably true.

As well as China, Japan, India, and Ukraine.

 

[nehalem256]

Let's run down a couple of the weakest "arguments" against gay marriage:

"It will harm the institution of marriage!"

> Well, putting aside the seldom-justified hysteria that typically accompanies this "argument", no one has ever been able to specifically quantify the "harm" to anyone's existing or future marriage that would come from two strangers, who happen to be gay, getting married.
.

Marriage does not exist to benefit individuals couples. It exists to benefit society.

The fact that you as well as liberals in general seem to completely not understand this show that the institution of marriage has already been harmed.

 

[zsdersw]

Marriage does not exist to benefit individuals couples. It exists to benefit society.

The fact that you as well as liberals in general seem to completely not understand this show that the institution of marriage has already been harmed.

Yes, marriage exists to benefit society (and individuals). Gay marriage benefits society. Strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and communities populated by people with recognized and sanctioned bonds to one another are some of the benefits to society that marriage signifies. These benefits are not exclusive to heterosexuals.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Marriage does not exist to benefit individuals couples. It exists to benefit society.

The fact that you as well as liberals in general seem to completely not understand this show that the institution of marriage has already been harmed.

Even if we buy that marriage is for society and not individuals, we need some compelling reason to deny it to those that society does not get benefit from. You also need a compelling argument that society does not benefit from gay marriage, I personally think it does. In the absence of such a compelling argument, society needs to treat them equal to all other relationships.

But I just have to know after reading this post - what is there to fear?

Truthfully, I don't really get it either. I know it is there, and it produces some startling reactions, but I'm not sure why.
Want to see it at work, go into your average bar and buy a guy a drink and wink at him. See if you don't get your ass kicked. Why? Why would he react violently to that? It is a compliment, no?

My personal guess is that it stems from many guys not being really all that comfortable in their sexuality, and maybe a little afraid of being treated like a woman (because, if they know it or not, they think of women as inferior.)

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, marriage exists to benefit society (and individuals). Gay marriage benefits society. Strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and communities populated by people with recognized and sanctioned bonds to one another are some of the benefits to society that marriage signifies. These benefits are not exclusive to heterosexuals.

Except liberals have already destroyed the idea of marriage being a "lasting domestic relationship"

oops.

EDIT: Okay, I may be being unfair. Do you personally oppose no-fault divorce and think that marriage is about establishing "lasting domestic relationships"?

 

[nehalem256]

Even if we buy that marriage is for society and not individuals, we need some compelling reason to deny it to those that society does not get benefit from. You also need a compelling argument that society does not benefit from gay marriage, I personally think it does.

Marriage is for society. Or do you think that one day someone said hey maybe we should start granting special benefits to certain people. Think how silly that idea is.

And we do not deny marriage to anyone. We deny it to certain couples.

In the absence of such a compelling argument, society needs to treat them equal to all other relationships.

Marriage is not about treating all relationships as equal. It is specifically about making certain relationships not equal with others.

 

[zsdersw]

Except liberals have already destroyed the idea of marriage being a "lasting domestic relationship"

oops.

How? Liberals are only about 20% of the US population. With a divorce rate hovering around 50%, surely there are plenty of conservatives "destroying" that idea as well.

And, since when do you use the purported failure of an ideology you disagree with as the basis for and justification of your opinions?

EDIT: Okay, I may be being unfair. Do you personally oppose no-fault divorce and think that marriage is about establishing "lasting domestic relationships"?

Yes.

 

[sigurros81]

I'm not gay and I don't care what gay people do, and I am not going to tell them what they should or shouldn't do. People who uses religion as an excuse for their argument against it are fucking idiots.

 

[nehalem256]

How? Liberals are only about 20% of the US population. With a divorce rate hovering around 50%, surely there are plenty of conservatives "destroying" that idea as well.

So now we have determined that a relatively small group of people CAN destroy an institution for others.

And if you believe in no-fault divorce, open marriages, etc you are clearly adopting the liberal view point on marriage. For example Newt Gingrich is a so called "conservative", but he clearly does not have a conservative viewpoint on marriage.

And liberals are the ones who destroyed it by making no-fault divorce socially acceptable. People are to a large extend selfish and stupid and need society to tell them how to act. Even so called conservative people will act liberally if society permits it.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm not gay and I don't care what gay people do[/]b, and I am not going to tell them what they should or shouldn't do. People who uses religion as an excuse for their argument against it are fucking idiots.

You see the problem with that argument is that them asking for you to recognize their relationship is them asking for you to care.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Marriage is for society. Or do you think that one day someone said hey maybe we should start granting special benefits to certain people. Think how silly that idea is.

Yes, actually. I think that one day someone, probably someone sitting on a throne, said, 'I now own you' and made that relationship special from all the other women he was sleeping with. Why? Because he probably had emotions.

And we do not deny marriage to anyone. We deny it to certain couples.

Those two sentences are logically contradictory. Couples are made up of people, therefore denying it to couples is denying it to someone.

Marriage is not about treating all relationships as equal. It is specifically about making certain relationships not equal with others.

Then marriage is unconstitutional in it's current form and must be revised.

 

[soulcougher73]

Oh and they want government benefits.

Although that is not actually an argument for same-sex marriage. That is an explanation for wanting it.

What government benefits do that want? What government benefits as a heterosexual married man that i am get right now?

I dont seem to recall getting any benefits that i feel others should not also get.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So now we have determined that a relatively small group of people CAN destroy an institution for others.

And if you believe in no-fault divorce, open marriages, etc you are clearly adopting the liberal view point on marriage. For example Newt Gingrich is a so called "conservative", but he clearly does not have a conservative viewpoint on marriage.

And liberals are the ones who destroyed it by making no-fault divorce socially acceptable. People are to a large extend selfish and stupid and need society to tell them how to act. Even so called conservative people will act liberally if society permits it.

No True Scotsman....

 

[Retro Rob]

There may be hope for you yet.

I just see people as people from black to white to straight to gay. I don't get how religious people make it their business to speak out about something (publicly) and argue and bicker like idiots.

If they think its wrong (personally I do as well) then leave it up to lawmakers to decided. The issue isn't so much of it being "wrong" as it is how people are treated. It's the same mentality employed by white racists idiots who wanted to hate blacks because they didn't look like them.

As far as the public goes, I keep my views on SSM to myself unless asked about them, or if im having a decent discussion on this forum etc.

 

[zsdersw]

So now we have determined that a relatively small group of people CAN destroy an institution for others.

No, we haven't. We've determined that approximately half of all marriages end in divorce, and that with liberals being only 20% of the population, there are plenty of conservatives who contribute to it as well.

And if you believe in no-fault divorce, open marriages, etc you are clearly adopting the liberal view point on marriage. For example Newt Gingrich is a so called "conservative", but he clearly does not have a conservative viewpoint on marriage.

And liberals are the ones who destroyed it by making no-fault divorce socially acceptable. People are to a large extend selfish and stupid and need society to tell them how to act. Even so called conservative people will act liberally if society permits it.

... says the old man from his rocking chair in the nursing home.

 

[soulcougher73]

Which of course explains why Ukraine (with a population that is 62.5% non-religious is banning public support of homosexuality).

Or why Japan and China do not have same-sex marriage.

Good thing the USA is not Ukraine, Japan or China then huh? We used to be a nation that lead by example. Maybe we will get there again.

 

[nehalem256]

Those two sentences are logically contradictory. Couples are made up of people, therefore denying it to couples is denying it to someone.

No one is prohibited from marrying.

Then marriage is unconstitutional in it's current form and must be revised.

Then marriage is inherently unconstitutional. Marriage is inherently about recognizing certain relationships as unequal. All the debate about same-sex marriage is about is determining which relationships will be granted special unequal privileges.

 

[nehalem256]

No, we haven't. We've determined that approximately half of all marriages end in divorce, and that with liberals being only 20% of the population, there are plenty of conservatives who contribute to it as well.

If society says it is acceptable to act selfishly people will act selfishly. This is not restricted to liberals.

Liberals are however the ones who made it acceptable to act selfishly with regard to divorce.

EDIT: And if 80% of people were actually conservative I think your OP would be significantly different huh?

 

[zsdersw]

If society says it is acceptable to act selfishly people will act selfishly. This is not restricted to liberals.

I'm glad you see that.

Liberals are however the ones who made it acceptable to act selfishly with regard to divorce.

Everyone is responsible for their own choices. The liberation and sexual revolution that I presume you're referring to when you talk about liberals making stuff acceptable has had far more of a benefit to society overall than it has been a detriment.

A society whose mentality remains stuck in the 1950s will most certainly die. A society whose mentality grows and changes will survive. The willow tree survives a strong storm; the rigid oak doesn't.

EDIT: And if 80% of people were actually conservative I think your OP would be significantly different huh?

Yes, if 80% of people in this country were actually conservative, we wouldn't have "marriage" at all in any level of government. We'd have civil unions, available to both hetero- and homo-sexual couples.