Jon Stewart in High Form-

[Stary Hickory]

You can make as many abstract rules as you want. It still does not give you the right to interfere with a voluntary transaction.

What abstract rules? The gay community is in fact asking for a positive (IE backed by force) decree by the government. Government should not be defining the term or determining who is considered "married". Filing a return jointly fine. Joint return.

The gay communities intent is irrelevant. I don't care if their only reason is simply to piss heterosexuals people off. It still doesn't give you the right to interfere. It doesn't matter.

It does indeed matter, we are asking for an official defining of a term by government. This is what is sought. And you want it backed by force. It does indeed matter what their intentions are...especially when they are asking for government force to realize these intentions.

Or, you could get out of someone's way and let them live your life and you live yours.

Oh please stuff this, I am out of people's way, I actually support getting the government out of marriage altogether. The gay community needs to do the EXACT same thing. Quit pushing for a legal(backed by force) redefinition of marriage.

There are two issues and you see only one, I can support everyone being equal under the law, but I will not support the government using it's force to redefine marriage in an attempt to attach gay unions to an established institution with it's own values. It's futile, what is desired is that gay marriages would have the same status in the eyes of Americans as Heterosexual marriages...because of the title. As if a name change can do this?

It's frankly absurd. This will not even begin to address the problems between gays and non gays.....it will agitate it further. And it designed to do such. It is not the way to get respect and is akin to a childlike tit for tat game. Many people like myself DON"T want to be involved. I don't dislike gays in general I dislike individuals based on their own merits.


If gays really want freedom then demand government get out of the marriage business altogether. But using government as a club to attack institutions held dear to other folks is immoral. This is what SOME of the gay community is doing. It's motivated by revenge and anger because of the lack of respect they have been getting.....and I will not argue this sucks. But what is often overlooked is that a lot of people don't care(they are bystanders) but just want to keep their beliefs and institutions in tact. Why attack these people using government?

There are TWO issues one is legal status(moral for gays to want this) and the other is legislated respect(immoral for gays to want this).

 

[RM918]

Get the state out of marriage, civil unions for everyone no matter if they want to marry a man or a woman or a desk chair. Never, however, force a church to perform a service they don't want to or stop them from performing one they do want.

 

[orafi]

So what if two buddies want to marry?




I'm not so concerned with it and honestly it is very low on my list of priorities. But I do believe that marriage means a man and a woman.

Then marry a women, man! No one will judge you!

 

[speciallyblend]

Get the state out of marriage, civil unions for everyone no matter if they want to marry a man or a woman or a desk chair. Never, however, force a church to perform a service they don't want to or stop them from performing one they do want.

are churches forced to marry gays? just wondered

 

[speciallyblend]

What abstract rules? The gay community is in fact asking for a positive (IE backed by force) decree by the government. Government should not be defining the term or determining who is considered "married". Filing a return jointly fine. Joint return.



It does indeed matter, we are asking for an official defining of a term by government. This is what is sought. And you want it backed by force. It does indeed matter what their intentions are...especially when they are asking for government force to realize these intentions.




Oh please stuff this, I am out of people's way, I actually support getting the government out of marriage altogether. The gay community needs to do the EXACT same thing. Quit pushing for a legal(backed by force) redefinition of marriage.

There are two issues and you see only one, I can support everyone being equal under the law, but I will not support the government using it's force to redefine marriage in an attempt to attach gay unions to an established institution with it's own values. It's futile, what is desired is that gay marriages would have the same status in the eyes of Americans as Heterosexual marriages...because of the title. As if a name change can do this?

It's frankly absurd. This will not even begin to address the problems between gays and non gays.....it will agitate it further. And it designed to do such. It is not the way to get respect and is akin to a childlike tit for tat game. Many people like myself DON"T want to be involved. I don't dislike gays in general I dislike individuals based on their own merits.


If gays really want freedom then demand government get out of the marriage business altogether. But using government as a club to attack institutions held dear to other folks is immoral. This is what SOME of the gay community is doing. It's motivated by revenge and anger because of the lack of respect they have been getting.....and I will not argue this sucks. But what is often overlooked is that a lot of people don't care(they are bystanders) but just want to keep their beliefs and institutions in tact. Why attack these people using government?

There are TWO issues one is legal status(moral for gays to want this) and the other is legislated respect(immoral for gays to want this).

i agree,right now both sides are using our government to attack based on their beliefs. if common ground can be found but the gop and dncs job is to keep both sides divided. they use gay marriage as a dividing issue. so we need to focus it on a uniting issue.

 

[trey4sports]

So what if two buddies want to marry?




I'm not so concerned with it and honestly it is very low on my list of priorities. But I do believe that marriage means a man and a woman.

exactly MARRIAGE is between a man and woman. But marriage is a christian function and it should be administered by churches. Government should issue civil unions to any two people wanting to enter into a "life contract"
Government has no right to discriminate, the churches (being a private institution) DO have the right to discriminate which i fully support.

 

[speciallyblend]

exactly MARRIAGE is between a man and woman. But marriage is a christian function and it should be administered by churches. Government should issue civil unions to any two people wanting to enter into a "life contract"
Government has no right to discriminate, the churches (being a private institution) DO have the right to discriminate which i fully support.

i believe marriage was adoped by christians from pagans,so they do not own exclusive rights to the word marriage or the ceremony... they kinda of co-opted it,but that doesn't mean they get to tell others what marriage is about . unless its their own church.but i still am not aware of a single church that is forced to marry gays??

 

[BlackTerrel]

i hear you, and that is fine you believe that but that doesn't mean you get to dictate your beliefs on to others. now if gays were trying to take your rights away to marry a woman. then i would be fighting for your rights..

It's not their right. Gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex just like someone else can. I don't have the right to marry a man either.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Traditional marriage is between a man and one or more women. Why does our goverment ban traditional marriage?

 

[BlackTerrel]

Part of it is this but part of it is the very aggressive gay movement who is always trying to be in your face about it. This is what is giving the gay movement a lot of trouble. Legislated respect simply is not possible.

That I agree with. We were designed to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex - that is how a species survive. I wouldn't want to vote for one, or be friends with one (just like I wouldn't want to vote for someone with a shoe fetish or a furry fetish). They have a right to do what they want - but don't try to convince me that it is normal - because it isn't.

 

[MichelleHeart]

I say leave it up to the states and let them privatize marriage if they wish. Privatization of marriage is more likely to happen on a state level than on a federal level. There should be no federal jurisdiction of marriage whatsoever.

(As for my personal opinions regarding Jon Stewart, he is an overrated hack.)

 

[RBS51]

Part of it is this but part of it is the very aggressive gay movement who is always trying to be in your face about it. This is what is giving the gay movement a lot of trouble. Legislated respect simply is not possible.

However obviously I don't care if a gay couple want to enter into a legally binding relationship. Though I do think that demanding the title married is what is driving most of the opposition. Marriage is a very spiritual thing for many folks. It's a traditional union of man and woman. When they gay movement demand that this title they are trampling on people's religious beliefs in many cases.

This is a big source of their pain. If the gay movement would simply title it differently half of the issue would go away. But they press the issue because they want legislated respect....and this is not going anywhere positive.

Did you ever consider that this aggressiveness on the part of the "gay movement" was just blowback? You know, the same concept that Ron Paul uses to explain our failed diplomatic polices, especially those that have resulted in war or terrorism against us.

 

[MichelleHeart]

You could be right RBS51, but that doesn't make their behavior 100% inexcusable. I, as a member of the LGBT community, am irritated very much so by the gay Left. In fact, I'm writing an article about it for my blog. I had a big fight with them the other day.

 

[RBS51]

I say leave it up to the states and let them privatize marriage if they wish. Privatization of marriage is more likely to happen on a state level than on a federal level. There should be no federal jurisdiction of marriage whatsoever.

(As for my personal opinions regarding Jon Stewart, he is an overrated hack.)

Marriage can not be privatized unless it is contracted out out to each individual justice of the peace for prersonal profit.

Marriage must be defined as a moral concept with moral grounds (which is a consensus of opinion amongst those willing to hold forth as moral authorities) ; or a political concept with political and and legal rights. If there are those who want to have it both ways they must realize that morality is not enforcable in a court of law.

For decades there has been religious mariage with religious courts (notably Jewish and Catholic) that have granted religious marriage and divorce.

Civil requirements for marriage are different. This has also been true for decades.
What we need to do is clarify the rights, priveleges, and procedures for both legal and civil marriage and apply constitutional law to civil procedure and religious law to religious procedure.

Why on earth is this such a difficult subject for people to understand?

 

[RBS51]

I say leave it up to the states and let them privatize marriage if they wish. Privatization of marriage is more likely to happen on a state level than on a federal level. There should be no federal jurisdiction of marriage whatsoever.

(As for my personal opinions regarding Jon Stewart, he is an overrated hack.)

Marriage can not be privatized unless it is contracted out out to each individual justice of the peace or religious group for profit.

Marriage must be definded as a moral concept with moral grounds (which is a consensus of opinion amongst those willing to hold forth as moral authorities) ; or a political concept with political and and legal rights. If there are those who want to have it both ways they must realize that morality is not enforcable in a court of law.

For decades there has been religious mariage with religious courts (notably Jewish and Catholic) that have granted religious marriage and divorce.

Civil requirements for marriage are different. This has also been true for decades.
What we need to do is clarify the rights, priveleges, and procedures for both legal and civil marriage and apply constitutional law to civil procedure and religious law to religious procedure.

Why on earth is this such a difficult subject for people to understand?

 

[MichelleHeart]

Doesn't that mean that the Tenth Amendment would allow each state to decide on the issue of marriage? In my state, for example, I would prefer that government be reduced to its minimal function of enforcing contracts. Marriage would be recognized by each individual and his or her loved one through contract. The only thing government would do is recognize that a contract exists, not define that contract as marriage. The individual and his or her partner would do that. Others can then decide if they recognize that contract as marriage. For example, someone who is against gay marriage could refuse to recognize that contract as marriage, but the gay couple could recognize that contract as marriage for themselves. What is wrong with the separation of family and state? It is my guess that I am severely misunderstanding you, and that I am just being completely stupid.

 

[tremendoustie]

I liked the first section - about the banking industry.

Stewart is definitely a liberal though. Gay people can be gay all they want - but I don't see why they should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. That is not equal rights that is more rights.

Government shouldn't be in charge of marriage.

 

[MichelleHeart]

I tried explaining that to all the liberal queers who say that government must own marriage. They shouted me down and called me self-loathing for saying that marriage is what you make of it. I, as a queer, am also supposed to completely disregard the Tenth Amendment and states' rights.

 

[teacherone]

I liked the first section - about the banking industry.

Stewart is definitely a liberal though. Gay people can be gay all they want - but I don't see why they should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. That is not equal rights that is more rights.

you are so right! and black people--they shouldn't be able to vote, own property, or be educated either.

black people can be black all they want. but i believe that citezanry is reserved for whites only. one drop is one too many!




before i get banned please note that the above was pure irony.

 

[SelfTaught]

I'm okay with two dudes marrying................as long as they both wear suits. None of this one dude wears a suit and one dude wears a dress type shit.