The coming pandemic of “gay marriage”

[Kluge]

I swear to God, Madagascar must be impossible to infect. I've infected the whole world before but couldn't get those clever fools. There has to be a way...

Anyway, I'm leaning toward thinking that this is just a smokescreen issue. The Government realizes that people were getting restless with all the spending and abuses by the police, so now they have to sate our blood-thirst with an issue that doesn't need to be solved right now. Honestly, we're worrying about who or what someone can love when our entire country is falling apart due to reasons much worst than gay people getting married.

It's a smokescreen issue, just like abortion often is.

Maybe I should move to Madagascar, they may know something I don't, these game programmers.

 

[speciallyblend]

How can you collectively label people like that when

1. You don't know what they are afraid of and
2. You don't know "all those straight anti-gay" folks

Please stop making collectivist judgments about straight folks who exercise their right to tell people that they believe what they are doing is morally wrong. There is no force invovled. We simply reserve our right to believe it's wrong. If it means anything to you or people who persistently make that outrageous claim as a red herring distraction from the real issue, I am not afraid of being gay. I simply am not gay, and yet I believe being gay is wrong (WHOA! SHOCKER!).

the same way people on this forum collectively say being gay is a choice, i guess you missed the sarcasm meter.

I guess god was on crack when transgendered folks are born! I guess god damned them for life.

you can believe being gay is wrong but bottom line it is none of yours or mines business unless they are forcing you to marry against your will! It is a non-issue!

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Several horses have become first lady over the years.

 

[Schifference]

I predict discrimination in the future after Same sex marriage is legal. I predict that one day a young person will sue the court for discrimination because the court will not allow them to get married even though they would allow the same aged opposite sex child to do so.

 

[idiom]

Will wearing a pvc full body suit raise or lower my chances of getting infected with gay marriage?

 

[anaconda]

How will they prove if someone is gay and not just 2 friends living together?

How about divorce settlements?

 

[KingNothing]

How will they prove if someone is gay and not just 2 friends living together?

THIS HAS THE MAKINGS OF A TREMENDOUS ROMCOM!

 

[KingNothing]

Your presumptions about the Bible (which I assume is what you're referring to) are erroneous. The Bible is the most authentic piece of literature in human history.

I especially like the part where it says to stone disobedient children. Nothing more authentic than that.

 

[KingNothing]

I simply am not gay, and yet I believe being gay is wrong (WHOA! SHOCKER!).

Is it wrong to be 5'9"? Is it wrong to be black? Is it wrong to near-sighted?

This ugly mentality that it is up to you to judge people who are born a certain way and look down on them as if you were superior is disgusting. Who in the hell are you to say what is "wrong" and what gives you the right to determine what is moral?

 

[jmdrake]

Couple A = 2 guys, married by a justice of the peace, who receive a marriage license from the state.

Couple B = 1 man and 1 woman who exchange vows before family and loved ones at their church, and forgo a license from the state because they are anarcho capitalists.

When God looks down from Heaven, which couple does he considered married? Exactly. When it comes to marriage, the state is irrelevant.

We have a thread winner! The problem ain't the gays or the fundies. The problem is the state.

 

[KingNothing]

We have a thread winner! The problem ain't the gays or the fundies. The problem is the state.

True, the state should be out of the marriage business. But people should also be out of the business of judging what two consenting adults who love each other choose to do with their lives.

That principle is EXTREMELY important to the Liberty movement. Just let people be. They aren't hurting anyone. Just let them be.

 

[DamianTV]

There are multiple problems to be considered.

10th Amendment - It IS up to the State.
Federal Law - Intervenes when State Laws are in Disagreement.

Obama saying it should be up to the State is a Copout. He doesnt want it to cause too much contraversy because it is an Election Year.

What I think the Federal Governments proper role should be is to ensure that the States respect and recognize each others Laws. If it is Legal for such and such State, another state that has not legalized Gay Marriage needs to recognize the Law of which the individuals got married in.

States also need to recognize DIVORCE as equally as MARRIAGE. Guess what. Gay people get DIVORCED too. But when a gay couple gets married in a State that later changes its mind and does not recognize Gay Marriage, then that couple wants to get a divorce, that also needs to be recognized under Ex Post Facto. That means at the time, it was legal for those two people to get married, thus, it is recognized by that States Law, and allow them to get a Divorce.

Federal Employees and Social Security

I'll also try to exrpess my opinion to be as Constitutional as possible. The purpose of the 10 Amendment is to ensure that the Federal Govt recognizes a States Authority. Thus, Social Security and Federal Benefits need to be recognized by the State in which a couple has been recognized as married, according to the time and legal status of gay marriage in which they were married. They got married in a state that recognizes Gay Marriage, and even though that state may have changed its laws since then, the Federal Govt needs to respect the Law of that state when Gay Marriage was recognized. Thus, a couple got married when it was recognized, the spouces should be (and I hate this word, but people do pay into Social Security) *entitled* to receive those benefits. I believe that recognizing the Law of the State at the time that a Marriage had taken place puts the Federal Govt in the correct position of leaving decisions up to the state and only intervening when there is a disagreement between States.

What I do NOT want is the Federal Govt to have the power to EITHER ALLOW OR DENY Gay Marriage. A Federal Law that does either exceeds the Powers granted to the Federal Govt in the Constitution.

Now, trying to put aside my Personal Beliefs and think of this as Constitutionally as possible, are there any major issues with my interpretation of what should happen? I do believe that I am probably not 100% Constitutional in my interpretation, so please feel free to correct me if I am misinterpreting something. Again, trying to put my Personal Opinions of this aside and look at it from the "does this follow the constitution" perspective, so if Gay Marriage not something that you support, lets not even address Gay Marriage period and think of this as something completely different, such as, should smoking pot be a Federal Law, or some other topic that could be considered contraversial between States and Federal Govt, then work with it from there, as to not try to offend anyones Personal Beliefs.

Opinions?

 

[Burrows14]

Personally this is one of the issues I break away libertarianism from. I'm not a liberterian, never will be, but I agree with libertarianism on most economic positions.

I believe that gay marriage, and even homosexuality, should be illegal. I'm not a theocrat, but I do believe that government cannot go against God's law and Biblical morality. Therefore things such as homosexuality and abortion must be illegal.

 

[Kluge]

Will wearing a pvc full body suit raise or lower my chances of getting infected with gay marriage?

Raise.

There's probably a PVC fetish out there, and it's mostly men who have fetishes.

 

[Kluge]

Personally this is one of the issues I break away libertarianism from. I'm not a liberterian, never will be, but I agree with libertarianism on most economic positions.

I believe that gay marriage, and even homosexuality, should be illegal. I'm not a theocrat, but I do believe that government cannot go against God's law and Biblical morality. Therefore things such as homosexuality and abortion must be illegal.

And you can't imagine the immoral ways the government would enforce those laws? Would it not be more Christian to educate people?

 

[Burrows14]

And you can't imagine the immoral ways the government would enforce those laws? Would it not be more Christian to educate people?

That's why I believe in a very limited government and in local control. That said, I do believe that if a community wants to ban homosexual behavior it has that right (and ought to use it!). However, that doesn't change that I think that such immoral and disgusting behavior such as homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated by government or private citizens. I do believe the government has a role to play in enforcing morality and I don't believe the government has the right to legalize or promote immoral activities.

Of course a law will never change the morality of a people, you can't change someone's heart. But that doesn't mean that the government has the right to permit (and condone/encourage as it does now) certain immoral behavior such as homosexuality. I think Lawrence v Texas was a horrible ruling.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

We're speeding towards a dollar collapse and politicians are worried about ... gay marriage?

The two parties have to pretend they disagree on something.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

That's why I believe in a very limited government and in local control. That said, I do believe that if a community wants to ban homosexual behavior it has that right (and ought to use it!). However, that doesn't change that I think that such immoral and disgusting behavior such as homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated by government or private citizens. I do believe the government has a role to play in enforcing morality and I don't believe the government has the right to legalize or promote immoral activities.

Of course a law will never change the morality of a people, you can't change someone's heart. But that doesn't mean that the government has the right to permit (and condone/encourage as it does now) certain immoral behavior such as homosexuality. I think Lawrence v Texas was a horrible ruling.

Fail.

Tolerance my friend.

 

[Vessol]

I do believe the government has a role to play in enforcing morality and I don't believe the government has the right to legalize or promote immoral activities.

So is arresting and kidnapping people if they do not pay their taxes(aka: theft) moral? What about murdering them if they object to being arrested?

I know many people of faith who would find the idea that the government is supposed to enforce morality, morally detestable. Because in order to even exist, said government must break three near universal moral laws: theft, kidnapping, and potentially murder.

 

[Kluge]

That's why I believe in a very limited government and in local control. That said, I do believe that if a community wants to ban homosexual behavior it has that right (and ought to use it!). However, that doesn't change that I think that such immoral and disgusting behavior such as homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated by government or private citizens. I do believe the government has a role to play in enforcing morality and I don't believe the government has the right to legalize or promote immoral activities.

Of course a law will never change the morality of a people, you can't change someone's heart. But that doesn't mean that the government has the right to permit (and condone/encourage as it does now) certain immoral behavior such as homosexuality. I think Lawrence v Texas was a horrible ruling.

When you say that a gov't has a role to play in morality, whose morality? And when you say that such behavior shouldn't be tolerated by gov't and citizens, what do you see as the ideal response to it? And how do you give them the tools to make sure that no citizens are violating these laws without breaking privacy laws?