• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

GOP steers clear of gay marriage issue

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
The GOP is steering clear of it because even hard core rightie/Republicans like myself support gay marriage and wish the GOP would stop with their bigotry.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,657
13,735
136
Please show me when the government of the US and one of the religions in the US were the same thing. If you cannot, then admit you are talking out your butt.
You definitely lack historical perspective, as well as reading comprehension. The unity of govt & religion is much older than the US, dating from pre-biblical times. Even when Henry VIII broke with the Papacy, that unity was maintained in England through the agency of the Church of England. The whole concept of marriage was central to that break. During the Reformation, different sects achieved parity with the Catholic Church in some regions, something that was inextricably linked with the idea of government. Government was by divine right, rather than the will of the people.

In early America, marriage wasn't recognized by the States as such unless it had been duly recognized by one of the churches. In that sense, Marriage as an institution has always carried spiritual significance, even as the concept of the root of the right to govern changed. In a democracy, it is the state that grants the church the right to create marriage, and even to claim that right as its own, if not exclusively. As the religiousity of the population has decreased & the influence of organized religion has waned, that spiritual significance has remained, as a function of the word "Marriage" itself.

You just want to deny that significance to non hetero couples, that's all. They're not buying it, nor should anybody else. You just want to be able to say that gay couples "aren't really married".
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
0
0
Here is an example to help you understand:

You build a house and are very happy with it. Many months after moving in and being completely happy with the home, an unusually heavy rainstorm hits your area. You notice water coming into your basement from one corner of the house. Looking outside, you notice water is pooling by that corner. After the storm is over, you notice the grading is bad and the water is not flowing away from the house like it should.

That problem has always been there, but until it was shown to you (by water in the basement), you did not realize there was a problem. Once shown, intead of blaming the rain (which caused you to notice the problem), you correctly blame the bad gradiing.

Gradiing is government involvement in a religious institution. Rain is the homosexual rights movement. Water in the basement is homosexual marriage.

Until the homosexual rights movement (rain) pushed homosexual marriage (water in basement), we did not notice the actual source of the problem as being the government intrusion in a religious institution (grading next to house).


Hope this clears it up for you.
I understood the much less verbose description nehalem posted. Yours is just a lengthier version of the same explanation. That doesn't mean I believe it.. or that it's true. There is absolutely zero evidence that a majority of the heterosexual population in the US regards government involvement in marriage as a problem that must be corrected.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,312
1,385
126
Instead of trying to push more government involvement in religion (in violation of the Constitution), we should instead remove the government involvement in religion.

The government should shift to civil unions only and let religions do the marrying. It is a win for everyone but the idiot extremists on both sides. A simple find/replace on forms is all that is needed to make the change.
Atheist.
People always forget atheist have married legally ever since marriage was marriage.

Never have atheist marriages been an issue.
Never have religious folks suggested atheists be treated different.
Never have atheist been held accountable to a different set of marriage standards.

Atheist totally and completely nullify any religious/biblical objections to SS marriage. Period!

Atheist marriage is moot because no one cares.
No one need be concerned, except for the two atheist getting married.

After SS marriage is legal, totally legal federal and coast to coast, SS marriage too, JUST AS ATHEIST MARRIAGES will get Z-E-R-O attention.
Why?
Because the bottom line... marriage is a private matter. A legal matter.
Atheist enjoy the freedom of legal marriage.
And so will same sex folks, one day.
And after the smoke clears, no one will care. Not one hoot.
Not anymore than people care about a marriage between two atheist.

Religion does not own marriage. The religious right does not own marriage.
Republicans do not own marriage. The church does not own marriage.

Whenever you hear a conversation on SS marriage, pro or cons, remember the atheist.
REMEMBER THE ATHEIST!!!
Remind people atheist have legally married with out the blessing of the church.
So religious objections against SS marriage are totally without merit. Totally without!
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
0
0
Let's give the devil his due; liberals didn't work for having more children out of wedlock, but rather that's a foreseeable consequence of lessening the consequences for doing so. Penalize behavior and you get less, subsidize behavior and you get more. In theory it would be great if we could subsidize those who become single parents needing assistance through no fault of their own and punish those who become single parents needing assistance through their own bad judgments, but setting aside that enormous empowerment of government, the children are equally blameless in both cases. As always, life is just not fair.

For the other, everything we do is a choice, even though the underlying attractions are largely not a choice. And while it's possible to ban gay adoption and limit fertility treatments to straight married couples, it's a pretty hard stomp on individual freedom. And that only allows for children brought from outside into gay households; I don't think many would disagree that removing children from gay but loving households is an evil act.

I believe that just as the free market will from millions of informed, free individual consumer choices form the economy that best fits the society, so too will a society produce from millions of informed, free individual choices form the societal framework that best suits the people in it. Maximize personal liberty and we all benefit. Same with the rule of law; only in the most unusual of cases, such as affirmative action, should government not treat everyone with the same respect, equality of protection, and maximum personal liberty.

I too am a convert, although a few decades back when I first had it explained as a matter of individual freedom and equal protection. It kind of all fits together though; once you stop seeing gay marriage as some sort of bizarre attack on "real" marriage, you start seeing gay people as, well, just people.

You, me and Obama - it's a start. :D
I agree 100% with this post. Well put. As for the bolded part, well, we are just people but we do have special decoder rings. :D j/k
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I understood the much less verbose description nehalem posted. Yours is just a lengthier version of the same explanation. That doesn't mean I believe it.. or that it's true. There is absolutely zero evidence that a majority of the heterosexual population in the US regards government involvement in marriage as a problem that must be corrected.
Have you ever bothered to ask anyone about it? No? Did not think so. Have you even bothered to google or bing it? No? Did not think so.

Are you against the idea? You appear to rail against it, which would put you into the extremist category. This would explain your rage.

Here is a good read by a pastor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-reyeschow/why-the-government-should_b_827209.html

Here is an actual bill in New Hampshire (not moving anywhere, though) which seeks to remove marriage and replace it with civil unions:

http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2011/HB569


You have to seperate the move to all civil unions from the links want removal of all marriages and civil unions, but doing a simple bing or google search will show you it is not some unknown thing that most people hate.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Atheist.
People always forget atheist have married legally ever since marriage was marriage.

Never have atheist marriages been an issue.
Never have religious folks suggested atheists be treated different.
Never have atheist been held accountable to a different set of marriage standards.

Atheist totally and completely nullify any religious/biblical objections to SS marriage. Period!

Atheist marriage is moot because no one cares.
Atheists have always agreed to follow the State Enforced Biblical Definition of Marriage. No one cares because they are willingly following a religious institution.

Your position has easily been debunked.


No one need be concerned, except for the two atheist getting married.


Religion does not own marriage. The religious right does not own marriage.
Republicans do not own marriage. The church does not own marriage.
Saying the same thing many times in one paragraph does not magically make it correct, but it does show you need meds.

In the US, the religious institution came first and the government put the force of law behind the religious institution.

I realize you want to pretend atheists, who willingly follow the rules of the religious institution, are some great reason to say the rules of the religious institution must be changed, but you are wrong.

To say it in a way you will understand:

Atheists follow the religious rules, atheists follow the religious rules, following the religious rules is what atheists have always done to be married. Whenever someone mentions the atheists, remind them they follow the religious rules for marriage!
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Atheist.
People always forget atheist have married legally ever since marriage was marriage.

Never have atheist marriages been an issue.
Never have religious folks suggested atheists be treated different.
Never have atheist been held accountable to a different set of marriage standards.

Atheist totally and completely nullify any religious/biblical objections to SS marriage. Period!

Atheist marriage is moot because no one cares.
No one need be concerned, except for the two atheist getting married.

After SS marriage is legal, totally legal federal and coast to coast, SS marriage too, JUST AS ATHEIST MARRIAGES will get Z-E-R-O attention.
Why?
Because the bottom line... marriage is a private matter. A legal matter.
Atheist enjoy the freedom of legal marriage.
And so will same sex folks, one day.
And after the smoke clears, no one will care. Not one hoot.
Not anymore than people care about a marriage between two atheist.

Religion does not own marriage. The religious right does not own marriage.
Republicans do not own marriage. The church does not own marriage.

Whenever you hear a conversation on SS marriage, pro or cons, remember the atheist.
REMEMBER THE ATHEIST!!!
Remind people atheist have legally married with out the blessing of the church.
So religious objections against SS marriage are totally without merit. Totally without!
You might have a point, except for the fact that it is based on the liberal lie that marriage is a religious (ie christian institution).

Now the fact that, as you bring up, Atheists want to get married too should have made this obvious to you.

But since it did not I will point out that China and Japan, 2 countries without Christian traditions, both have marriage, and in both cases only between opposite sex couples.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You definitely lack historical perspective, as well as reading comprehension. The unity of govt & religion is much older than the US, dating from pre-biblical times.
This thread is about the US. Unless you somehow think the GOP is a world wide political party, with members in the UK parliament, etc., you obviously know the thread is about the US.

You also quoted me specifically saying the US. Do you somehow think the US is the entirety of the planet Earth? That would be a foolish thing to believe.

So, back to the US, which is the topic of this thread:

Please show me when the government of the US and one of the religions in the US were the same thing. If you cannot, then admit you are talking out your butt.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,657
13,735
136
There are no facts concerning gay population, only studies....of which most state that the gay (as in people that identify as gay) population is anywhere from 2 > 4%..

Source

Source

Of course if you include people that have engaged in same sex behavior, then the numbers are much greater....but merely engaging in same sex behavior does not make one gay..



Which is B.S.. Don't tell me you're one of those people that believes we're all secretly bisexual but we just don't know it yet :rolleyes:

Sexual orientation and preference is biologically fixed. Sexual behavior however is not..
One study is not "studies".

The rest? Merely repetition of "values" as defined under Abrahamic religious tradition, in defiance of other historical & cultural contexts, along with the usual gobbledegook of denial. It fails to explain the cultural aspects of homosexual behavior in many cultures, and homosexuality even among animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

If homosexuality is a healthy & normal part of human variation, and modern psychology determines that it is & always has been, then expression of such is the same. attempts to repress it are therefore unhealthy, whether that repression is societal or personal.

Denying gay marriage is just one such form of repression.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
To say it in a way you will understand:

Atheists follow the religious rules, atheists follow the religious rules, following the religious rules is what atheists have always done to be married. Whenever someone mentions the atheists, remind them they follow the religious rules for marriage!
I am an atheist who is married. What religious rules have I followed?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
This thread is about the US. Unless you somehow think the GOP is a world wide political party, with members in the UK parliament, etc., you obviously know the thread is about the US.

You also quoted me specifically saying the US. Do you somehow think the US is the entirety of the planet Earth? That would be a foolish thing to believe.

So, back to the US, which is the topic of this thread:

Please show me when the government of the US and one of the religions in the US were the same thing. If you cannot, then admit you are talking out your butt.
Government and religion do not have to be combined in order for both to be involved in marriage.

Considering the importance of controlling human sexuality in general, and procreation in particular (especially important before the advent of paternity tests to determine the father)... why is it so odd that both religion and government would want to involve themselves with marriage?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I am an atheist who is married. What religious rules have I followed?
The ones the state codified into law when they put the force of law behind the religious institution in the US. You agreed to them when you were married.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
The ones the state codified into law when they put the force of law behind the religious institution in the US. You agreed to them when you were married.
So how was I able to be married when my marriage wasn't blessed by a priest, but that's a religious rule of marriage under the Catholic Church?
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
0
0
Have you ever bothered to ask anyone about it? No? Did not think so. Have you even bothered to google or bing it? No? Did not think so.
Yes, and yes.

Are you against the idea? You appear to rail against it, which would put you into the extremist category. This would explain your rage.
I am not at all against the idea. What I reject is the notion that a majority of the heterosexual population in this country is ready and willing to have their marriages called anything other than marriages by government and law.

Good for him. Doesn't change anything, though.

Here is an actual bill in New Hampshire (not moving anywhere, though) which seeks to remove marriage and replace it with civil unions:

http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2011/HB569
Unless you're going to claim that NH represents a good cross-section of the entire country's heterosexual population, that is relatively meaningless.

You have to seperate the move to all civil unions from the links want removal of all marriages and civil unions, but doing a simple bing or google search will show you it is not some unknown thing that most people hate.
Of course they don't exactly "hate" it, probably because almost nobody is talking about it or promoting it or pushing for it. That doesn't mean they support it, though.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
So how was I able to be married when my marriage wasn't blessed by a priest, but that's a religious rule of marriage under the Catholic Church?
It is an extra-Biblical addition. Adding things is allowable, removing required things is not. This is why it is also fine the state added a minimum age.

Since it appears you do not know the Biblical rules (not a slam, just an observation), I will give you a brief overview.

Marriage must be between a human man and a human woman, as sexually immoral acts are forbidden. Homosexual sex is a sexually immoral act, beastiality is a sexually immoral act.
Marriage must not be between a brother and sister or a child and parent. This is considered to be a sexually immoral act.

There is much debate about polygamy and the Bible. The New Testament does not forbid it from the general population, but only forbids it from those who wish to be in a leadership position in the church. Common view says no to polygamy, but it is not as clear cut as many believe. This was an add on to the rules because the common person demanded it. Since it does not violate the required rules, it is ok.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
It is an extra-Biblical addition. Adding things is allowable, removing required things is not. This is why it is also fine the state added a minimum age.

Since it appears you do not know the Biblical rules (not a slam, just an observation), I will give you a brief overview.

Marriage must be between a human man and a human woman, as sexually immoral acts are forbidden. Homosexual sex is a sexually immoral act, beastiality is a sexually immoral act.
Marriage must not be between a brother and sister or a child and parent. This is considered to be a sexually immoral act.

There is much debate about polygamy and the Bible. The New Testament does not forbid it from the general population, but only forbids it from those who wish to be in a leadership position in the church. Common view says no to polygamy, but it is not as clear cut as many believe. This was an add on to the rules because the common person demanded it. Since it does not violate the required rules, it is ok.
You did not say biblical rules, you said 'religious institution in the US'. That religious institution would not have recognized (and still would not recognize) my marriage. So clearly the law did not codify the rules of that institution.

If the rule of law resembles something which also happens to be in the bible is necessarily the legal codification of a religious rule, do you also consider murder laws the codification of religion (since it is forbidden in the ten commandments)?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You did not say biblical rules, you said 'religious institution in the US'. That religious institution would not have recognized (and still would not recognize) my marriage. So clearly the law did not codify the rules of that institution.
Right - a religious instituion (in the US) is based on The Bible. This is a given, due to the history of the US. They did not codify the Catholic institution, but that is due to the hatred of Catholics so prevelant in the US at the start.

If the rule of law resembles something which also happens to be in the bible is necessarily the legal codification of a religious rule, do you also consider murder laws the codification of religion (since it is forbidden in the ten commandments)?
Yes. Along with the blue laws, the public decency laws, the public airwaves laws. On and on. We have quite a lot of laws based on religion.

EDIT: However, one must not use The Law of Moses as if it is binding on Christians - it is only binding on those of Jewish descent (decendants of those there when the rules were agreed to). The New Testament does say murder is wrong, though, so it is still binding.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Do you somehow believe that republicans don't get divorces? Or do you claim some sort of "no true scotsman" defense for that.
My point is that liberalism would spread everywhere and complete the destruction of marriage. Thank you for outlining part of its spread.

If homosexuality is a healthy & normal part of human variation, and modern psychology determines that it is & always has been, then expression of such is the same. attempts to repress it are therefore unhealthy, whether that repression is societal or personal.

Denying gay marriage is just one such form of repression.
Which of course explains why 1/5 gay men has HIV :rolleyes:
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Right - a religious instituion (in the US) is based on The Bible. This is a given, due to the history of the US. They did not codify the Catholic institution, but that is due to the hatred of Catholics so prevelant in the US at the start.
So the rules aren't codification of the religious institution, but rather what we believe the religious institution should be doing? Either it follows the rules of the religion or it doesn't, and marriage in the legal sense does not have the same rules as marriage in the religious sense. It may be based on the religious rules, but we have long since accepted that the legal definition of marriage can deviate from the religious definition of marriage.

Yes. Along with the blue laws, the public decency laws, the public airwaves laws. On and on. We have quite a lot of laws based on religion.

EDIT: However, one must not use The Law of Moses as if it is binding on Christians - it is only binding on those of Jewish descent (decendants of those there when the rules were agreed to). The New Testament does say murder is wrong, though, so it is still binding.
You used the fact that a law was based on a religious rule as a reason to throw out the law. I am just showing that that line of reasoning doesn't hold up.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY