Baldwin: "Only between a Man and a Woman Only"

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Opposing gay marriage does not require religious belief. All it requires is the personal honesty to recognize that children deserve a chance to have both a mother and father.

Oh ok! So by this logic we should also take children away from all the single parents in the world and place them in a home with both a male and female? It's only fair to the child right?

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Because once homosexuals are legally "married", employers will be forced to provide medical and life insurance to gay "spouses" the same way they cover heterosexual spouses. Since homosexuals (men at least) have far more health problems and die on average 20 years earlier than straight men, this means that my health insurance rates will be forced up to pay for their lifestyle. There's just one example for you.

I doubt your statistics on Gay Men are true. However I still don't see the point your trying to make.

 

[Brassmouth]

Because once homosexuals are legally "married", employers will be forced to provide medical and life insurance to gay "spouses" the same way they cover heterosexual spouses. Since homosexuals (men at least) have far more health problems and die on average 20 years earlier than straight men, this means that my health insurance rates will be forced up to pay for their lifestyle. There's just one example for you.

That is absolute bullshit. Those studies have been utterly debunked, despite the Christian Right continuously using them to spout hatred and bigotry. I suppose you believe we can get AIDS from toilet seats too.

 

[FrankRep]

Suck it chuck. You are losing my vote.

Marriage is a cultural thing. Remove the tax incentives for marriage and kick the government out.

I support Chuck Baldwin on this issue.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I agree..get the government OUT of the marriage business and put it in the churches where it belongs...no more tax on marriage. tones (that is a good cause worth fighting for)

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Ron Paul believes marriage should be between ONE man and ONE woman. he said so. He says leave it to the states. he also says everyone knows what marriage is and there is no need to re define it. I don't agree with an amendment FOR gay marriage or agaINst gay marriage..it is not the business of the federal government. It is to be left to the states and to the people.

The people of California voted for ONE man and ONE woman...that should be fair right? how is it liberty when the people voted and the california supreme court threw out their vote..over ruleed the WILL of the people..and allowed gay marriage. is that not FORCiNG gay marrige on them? yes it is. I guess you libertarians think that is ok

Lets just look at physics. 2 magnets will not attract same poles do they? it's not natural. doesn't work..they RePEL. just try to plug 2 "male ends" together or two "female ends" together and see if you can get any kind of current of electricity... ain't gonna happen.

Ok...I have nothing against gay people....but gay people are the ones who made the issue of marriage political. I disagree with gay marriage. Marriage is a union before GOD...i don't consider it mainstream or good for a moral society. nope. but, if they want to go ride off into the sunset together,,,i have no issue with it. Do your thing. I guess at least 30 states have amended their constitutions to reflect one man one woman..and it was on Florida's ballot this go round. MOST of the people don't want it. If gays wnat to go and have a marriage ceremony more power to them...but as far as anything official..i didnt vote for it in my state.

I
I have gay friends...i enjoy being around them. I just don't agree with the marriage thing. I would like to see marriage legislation abolished..for everyone. Just go be happy. tones

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Ron Paul believes marriage should be between ONE man and ONE woman. he said so. He says leave it to the states. he also says everyone knows what marriage is and there is no need to re define it. I don't agree with an amendment FOR gay marriage or agaINst gay marriage..it is not the business of the federal government. It is to be left to the states and to the people.

The people of California voted for ONE man and ONE woman...that should be fair right? how is it liberty when the people voted and the california supreme court threw out their vote..over ruleed the WILL of the people..and allowed gay marriage. is that not FORCiNG gay marrige on them? yes it is. I guess you libertarians think that is ok

Lets just look at physics. 2 magnets will not attract same poles do they? it's not natural. doesn't work..they RePEL. just try to plug 2 "male ends" together or two "female ends" together and see if you can get any kind of current of electricity... ain't gonna happen.

Ok...I have nothing against gay people....but gay people are the ones who made the issue of marriage political. I disagree with gay marriage. Marriage is a union before GOD...i don't consider it mainstream or good for a moral society. nope. but, if they want to go ride off into the sunset together,,,i have no issue with it. Do your thing. I guess at least 30 states have amended their constitutions to reflect one man one woman..and it was on Florida's ballot this go round. MOST of the people don't want it. If gays wnat to go and have a marriage ceremony more power to them...but as far as anything official..i didnt vote for it in my state.

I
I have gay friends...i enjoy being around them. I just don't agree with the marriage thing. I would like to see marriage legislation abolished..for everyone. Just go be happy. tones

The statement that you feel it is a union before GOD states that you support laws being made to respect the establishment of your religion. This is the slippery slope of theocracy.

If there is no amendment, that's a start, but the defense of marriage act is a proposed federal law. That will still bind the states.

I am ok with leaving it to the states if that actually happened. However Baldwin made it clear that as President he would do everything in his power to define marriage according to his own religion's definition.

Gay people did not make marriage a political issue. The people who rose up in protest when Gay people started getting married because SOMEONE ELSE was getting married in a way they didn't approve of did. This is why Baldwin is not a Libertarian. And it is also why the CP platform is in no way Libertarian.

What two other people do with their lives is none of your business.

Or the governments.

I support getting marriage out of the government's hands. But the CP platform calls for more then that.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Oh ok! So by this logic we should also take children away from all the single parents in the world and place them in a home with both a male and female? It's only fair to the child right?

Slippery slope fallacy.

There is a big difference between recognizing that children deserve both a mother and a father, and using police powers to yank children away from their only parent. Our society has rushed headlong down a path of dismantling traditional families. All I'm saying is that maybe we should be a little more cautious and deliberate with our social engineering experiments.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Marriage is a cultural thing. Remove the tax incentives for marriage and kick the government out.

I agree 100%

Every aspect of marriage should be entirely voluntary, including whether spouses are given insurance benefits, etc. If I choose to not pay health care costs for some employee's stay at home fuck buddy, then I should not be attacked via the courts for that choice. The market can sort out such issues just fine if given a chance to work.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well...i think we should have a common goal..christians and atheists can find common ground. Lets work to get the government OUT of marriage completely. No more taxing marriage. if someone wants to go to a church fine...if someone wants to jump over a broom fine...just get the government out entirely. This protects everyone. I would like to see it happen . Then there will be no more arguments about marriage. People are only concerned about the financial benefits..the tax breaks, the insurance etc...that can all be done in other ways. Tones

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

I am perfectly ok with the government being out of it.

Now, let's make sure we are absolutely clear on this.

This means that ANY church can define marriage as they see fit?

That means polygamy? Gay marriage? Whatever they want right?

 

[TurtleBurger]

That is absolute bullshit. Those studies have been utterly debunked, despite the Christian Right continuously using them to spout hatred and bigotry. I suppose you believe we can get AIDS from toilet seats too.

Someone writing a blog saying "I don't believe this" doesn't debunk anything.

 

[TurtleBurger]

I doubt your statistics on Gay Men are true. However I still don't see the point your trying to make.

The point is, you can't say gay marriage is a private matter and it doesn't hurt anyone besides the parties getting married. The whole point of gay marriage is to affect third parties.

 

[dannno]

if someone wants to go to a church fine...

Ok..

if someone wants to jump over a broom fine...

Is THAT what they do at gay wedding ceremonies

 

[torchbearer]

Ok..




Is THAT what they do at gay wedding ceremonies

Wiccan.

 

[dannno]

I am perfectly ok with the government being out of it.

Now, let's make sure we are absolutely clear on this.

This means that ANY church can define marriage as they see fit?

That means polygamy? Gay marriage? Whatever they want right?

It is the government's job to enforce contracts. Said contract won't need to be upheld until after the wedding, or until a claim is need to be made. Individuals should essentially be able to make any sort of contract they want. The government will only uphold certain conditions of contracts. They won't let you make a contract to take a "pound of flesh" from someone, for example. Other than that, you can deal with all your alimony, child support, etc, all within the contract. I imagine there will be general marriage contracts, perhaps provided or sponsored by various associations or churches.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I am perfectly ok with the government being out of it.

Now, let's make sure we are absolutely clear on this.

This means that ANY church can define marriage as they see fit?

That means polygamy? Gay marriage? Whatever they want right?

The only reason I'm intersted in this subject at all, is in how it relates to law in family court. When people come before the court to petition for custody of a child, the determination should go one of two ways:

A jury decides who gets custody.

Or

If a judge is making the ruling, then they should base that ruling on the best interests of the child, which will almost always lead to placement with a heterosexual parent. I do not want the courts to evaluate as equal an otherwise suitable heterosexual family with a homosexual family. The homosexual family, barring any other considerations, is always an inferior setting for raising children, and the courts should recognize that fact. Same would be true of any other whackass family associations that dipshit humans invent. Now of course, if there are other factors, for example, the heterosexual parent is a convicted murderer, then yeah that would outweigh the negatives of the homosexual family. But in the case where the two families are otherwise equal, preference should go to the hetero family.

What worries me is that this move to legitimize gay marriage will inevitably lead to pressure on the courts to treat these different kinds of families as equally suitable for child-rearing, and that just defies common sense. It takes a man and woman to make the brat in the first place. That is nature's law. It isn't bigotry to recognize the facts of human biology.

 

[dannno]

Wiccan.

They should do it like in the olden days and mix ergot and various whatnots into their stew with the broomstick, then the groom should drink some. And then the bride should "ride" the broomstick and then pretend they are flying

It's funny what early Americans had to do to explain to their children what witches do with their broomsticks

 

[SeanEdwards]

Ok..




Is THAT what they do at gay wedding ceremonies

They don't always make it OVER the broomstick. Sometimes they just jump on it.

 

[torchbearer]

They should do it like in the olden days and mix ergot and various whatnots into their stew with the broomstick, then the groom should drink some. And then the bride should "ride" the broomstick and then pretend they are flying

It's funny what early Americans had to do to explain to their children what witches do with their broomsticks

In Wiccan traditions, there is jumping over the broomstick, and there is also hand fasting, where each cuts their hand and combine blood.
Sometimes there is a one year trial period in the agreement too.

Today, they usually just bind the hands together with a red fabric without the cutting part.
I notice in some 'christian' ceremonies they use a lot of the pagan traditions.