Why "protecting marriage" is retarded

[The_Orlonater]

Josh, Marriage is my religion's sacrament (we started it first)

The state wants to redefine it "for me and everyone"

to me this is a clear violation of church and state. simply really.....


letting the state redefine religious practise....is retarded (and dangerous)

What if some gay marriage church or group allows gays to get married?

 

[Josh_LA]

Josh, Marriage is my religion's sacrament (we started it first)

The state wants to redefine it "for me and everyone"

to me this is a clear violation of church and state. simply really.....


letting the state redefine religious practise....is retarded (and dangerous)

BULLSHIT

Nobody is asking you to accept fags as married

Just like nobody is forcing me to accept blacks as people even though legally blacks are defined as people equally as whites are.

Nobody is forcing Jewish synagogues to recognize gentiles as married, so why is it a problem that states recognize gays as married or give driver licenses to chimps?

 

[Josh_LA]

Fuck the government, and disgusting religious influence on it. How dare the totalitarians say whether homosexuals can marry. There are homosexual couples who have raised great kids. I don't mind if you want to practice your stupid religious ceremony, just don't direct it on my life.

I despise the religious culture, and I will always be disgusted with it. If any of you try to censor what I say on these forums(mods)then wouldn't that be hypocrisy on the freedom of speech part?

funny how they can use EVERY WORD for homos

"Sex"
"couples"
"love"
"relationship"

but "just not marriage", how holy,....shit!

 

[Josh_LA]

What if some gay marriage church or group allows gays to get married?

they do, nobody seems to care

 

[Josh_LA]

I think marriage should be nothing more than a religious ceremony. The legal part of it should be open to any parties of any size. I don't care if it's a guy and a girl, two guys, two girls, four guys and eight girls, three guys and a tranny, etc. The government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. But if you want to sign a legal contract than sign a legal contract and mind your own business.

the context of this proposition is seriously semantics

it's saying that you can't call two fags or dykes "married", doesn't say they can't be called something else and still get all the rights.

this is no different than "separate but equal"

Why is it a problem to call it the same thing if they're going to be treated equally?

It's either separate and unequal, or equal and equal. Calling blacks blacks but giving them the same rights is unnecessary, why not call them people like we call whites people?

 

[Conservative Christian]

"If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage....In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the president’s signature to become law. The bill already has passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 senators would vote for it; and the president would sign this legislation given his commitment to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.

Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage."

--Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

 

[BeFranklin]

Oh, so this is biased and fairly hateful, but YOU are the one siding with a semantic protection act.

Yes, it's about freedom of religion, since when was it illegal to hate gays and say Jesus died for sins?

Gays hate Christians not the other way around. And they hate marriage because by natural law they can not reproduce, which is the nature of the sin.

All this is about is hating Christians, and like most bullies you see on playgrounds, then say its the other kids that really did it.

Christians in this country aren't going to take this much more. When real Christians are railed up, they are the most dangerous of people. They aren't afraid to die in defense of what is right, they have faith, and God is constantly at their side.

 

[BeFranklin]

Lesbians, condoms go wild in attack on Christian church
Making out at pulpit, shouting blasphemies in front of children

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80743
Posted: November 11, 2008
9:07 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh

Worshippers at a Bible-teaching church in Lansing, Mich., were stunned Sunday when members of a pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back interrupted their service to fling propaganda and condoms around the sanctuary, drape a profane banner from the balcony and feature two lesbians making out at the pulpit.

According to a blog posting by Nick De Leeuw on Right Michigan, the Bash Back organization orchestrated a protest in front of Mount Hope Church to draw the church's security staff away from the sanctuary.

Then Bash Backers who had dressed up and mixed in with church worshippers took action.
....
Many demonstrators fled and the rest were quiet after sheriff's officers were summoned.

"Mount Hope churchgoers were unclear as to what the purpose of the demonstration was," said a statement from David Williams, a spokesman for the church.

"The leadership of Mount Hope Church does not attempt to identify the church as anti-homosexual, anti-choice, or right wing. The church does take the Bible at face value and believes what the Bible says to be the truth," ...

An angry mob of homosexual activists in Southern California attacked an elderly bespectacled woman carrying a cross then shouted her down during a live TV interview as she tried to explain to a reporter her defense of the state's new marriage amendment.

"WE SHOULD FIGHT! WE SHOULD FIGHT!" screams one protester as the woman, identified as Phyllis Burgess, stands calmly with a reporter waiting to be interviewed.

In the live interview by KPSP-TV in Palm Springs, another protester yells, "GET OUT OF HERE," and the reporter tells her anchor team back at the station, "As you can see we are being attacked."
...
Burgess barely had arrived when the cross was knocked from her hand then stomped on the ground.

About 10 minutes later, the on-scene reporter, Kimberly Cheng, tried repeatedly to complete her interview.

"She just wants to express her viewpoint, sir," she tells a protester who was waving his arms in her face.

The video later was posted on the San Francisco State University College Republicans' website.

Ryan Sorba, chairman of the college group, said the video "is astounding and chilling and speaks for itself."

"The end of this video illustrates the fate of religious freedom and marriage should pro-sodomy activists ultimately legalize so-called same-sex marriage by way of activist California courts," he wrote.

That's where the anchor concludes the report with: "There's a lot of anger and a lot of hate, quite honestly, on both sides."

On the Republicans' comment page, there was outrage.

"There is simply no explanation for this kind of intolerance. For a group of people who claim to be fighting to expand their rights, they sure are willing to strip conservatives of theirs."

"Yeah, the 80 year old woman was full of HATE. you could tell."

"The anchor said there was a lot of anger and hate on both sides – there was no anger and hate portrayed by the little old lady holding the cross. She reminds me of Ghandi. The anger and hate was all one sided. To defile a crucifix like that is a very grave evil indeed."

Do you still doubt that its odd to see a bunch of people attack old ladies and worship services? Or that this is cowardly perverse behavior?
Here's some more.

School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
Parents outraged at public elementary's secretive 'coming out' event

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 22, 2008
9:34 pm Eastern


By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Some parents are shocked to find their children are learning to be homosexual allies and will participate in "Coming Out Day" at a public elementary school tomorrow – and they claim the school failed to notify parents.

One mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, Calif., said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school.

The little girl replied, "We're learning to be allies."

The mother also said a Gay Straight Alliance club regularly meets in the kindergarten classroom during lunch

More gay activistism - up your alley
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=71616
San Francisco fest features public sex with no arrests
'This is what the gay agenda is all about'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 07, 2008
Police officer on the streets, but apparently told not to enforce publicly nudity or indecency rules, during the recent "Up Your Alley" homosexual festival

Nude men engaged in multiple instances of public sex on a municipal street while police officers, on foot and bicycle, congregated nearby making no attempt to enforce public indecency regulations, according to a report on the latest homosexual-fest in San Francisco.

Since the article above didn't provide pictures, and its hard to believe that something like this would go on in broad daylight without any of the media reporting it, I mean, this is about what you do in the privacy of your own home, right! I looked for pictures online.

Found some. It was worse than the article. I think what I found most disgusting about the sodomites was the area where someone was wearing a t-shirt that said "toliet pig", and eating/drinking excriment and urine while onlookers were in line.

It might have been this site. I'm not going to go through it again. It was sickening.

http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/

Pedophile Priests - most massive coverup of pedophiles by any organization in history just occured.
How could you get away with raping boys except decadance and again by not reporting the truth?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:*&q=pedophile+priests

 

[billjarrett]

I haven't looked through ALL the pages here (jumped around and scanned a few), but I didn't see the conclusion I came to after thinking hard about this, so figured I'd add it.

The main reason, from what I've understood, that homosexuals want to marry is for the benefits of marriage. After looking through my constitution, I don't see any part where it says that the government should be involved in marriage in any way shape or form. This includes basing their "benefits" off of it, in my opinion.

My ideal solution would be to leave actual marriage up to the church. Some may want to marry gays, others may not, that's their domain. But, as far as the benefits are concerned, I believe that whats mine is mine. If I am paying for two adults for health insurance, why does it necessarily have to be a spouse? Why not a platonic roommate, or a homeless guy? It's my benefit, I'm paying for it (with possible help from my company), but it's mine. Let me give it to whom I want.

As far as the government issues go, they have all their crap like taxes, social security, etc all tied up in marriage. I don't believe they should have taxes or social security at all, but if they must, why base them on marriage? People should pay taxes as individuals, and I don't see anything wrong with a one off transfer of a benefit you are due.

I'd say if the government and corporations would stay out of marriage completely, and stop basing their policies and benefits on it, this would be a non issue. Once again, government involvement is the problem, not the answer.

Hopefully this made some sense...

 

[heavenlyboy34]

i haven't looked through all the pages here (jumped around and scanned a few), but i didn't see the conclusion i came to after thinking hard about this, so figured i'd add it.

The main reason, from what i've understood, that homosexuals want to marry is for the benefits of marriage. After looking through my constitution, i don't see any part where it says that the government should be involved in marriage in any way shape or form. This includes basing their "benefits" off of it, in my opinion.

My ideal solution would be to leave actual marriage up to the church. Some may want to marry gays, others may not, that's their domain. But, as far as the benefits are concerned, i believe that whats mine is mine. If i am paying for two adults for health insurance, why does it necessarily have to be a spouse? Why not a platonic roommate, or a homeless guy? It's my benefit, i'm paying for it (with possible help from my company), but it's mine. Let me give it to whom i want.

As far as the government issues go, they have all their crap like taxes, social security, etc all tied up in marriage. I don't believe they should have taxes or social security at all, but if they must, why base them on marriage? People should pay taxes as individuals, and i don't see anything wrong with a one off transfer of a benefit you are due.

I'd say if the government and corporations would stay out of marriage completely, and stop basing their policies and benefits on it, this would be a non issue. Once again, government involvement is the problem, not the answer.

Hopefully this made some sense...

+9999

 

[Danke]

The main reason, from what I've understood, that homosexuals want to marry is for the benefits of marriage. After looking through my constitution, I don't see any part where it says that the government should be involved in marriage in any way shape or form. This includes basing their "benefits" off of it, in my opinion.

My ideal solution would be to leave actual marriage up to the church. Some may want to marry gays, others may not, that's their domain. But, as far as the benefits are concerned, I believe that whats mine is mine. If I am paying for two adults for health insurance, why does it necessarily have to be a spouse? Why not a platonic roommate, or a homeless guy? It's my benefit, I'm paying for it (with possible help from my company), but it's mine. Let me give it to whom I want.

As far as the government issues go, they have all their crap like taxes, social security, etc all tied up in marriage. I don't believe they should have taxes or social security at all, but if they must, why base them on marriage? People should pay taxes as individuals, and I don't see anything wrong with a one off transfer of a benefit you are due.

.

And this is where most fail in these type of discussions. Social Security, Income Taxes are voluntary, hence extrinsic to these types of Constitutional arguments.

The government has great leeway in such matters as they are not Constitutional matters as in equal protection.

You don't need the government to marry. Only if you wish to be granted the benefits of holding such license. But, many (mostly men) are realizing the pitfalls of that and are opting out.

You have the unlimited ability to contract. If you wish to contract with 3 partners, have at it. But if you want a government licenses, then you will have to stick with one partner of the opposite sex.

 

[BeFranklin]

Wouldn't change anything at all. (FYI I don't believe in marriage licenses). Gays would still push for hate crime legislation against churches, forced teaching of elementary school kids about homosexuality (the last is probably what sent California over the edge on voting against gay marriage), anti-discrimination laws (for instance you are in a church that doesn't hire homosexaul preachers, you are part of the boyscouts) etc.

Although this argument has been framed one way, the intolerance is coming from one side - the one pushing for special laws from government. The same thing is what caused the rise of the brownshirts in Nazi germany. Homosexuals were alienated from society by the nature of their sin, so they wanted to force everyone to their way. But nature itself decries it.

In fact, the Nazi Party began in a gay bar in Munich, and Ernst Roehm, Hitler's right hand in the early days of Nazism, was well-known for his taste in young boys. William Shirer says in his definitive "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," not only that Roehm was "important in the rise of Hitler," but also "like so many of the early Nazis, a homosexual."

Although it seems PC to accept that what you do in your own bedroom in the privacy of your home is your business, the more likely affect of the current tide is a new rise of homosexual brownshirt like intolerance, forced re-education of kids (already happening), and attacks against churches.

 

[BeFranklin]

And this is where most fail in these type of discussions. Social Security, Income Taxes are voluntary, hence extrinsic to these types of Constitutional arguments.

The government has great leeway in such matters as they are not Constitutional matters as in equal protection.

You don't need the government to marry. Only if you wish to be granted the benefits of holding such license. But, many (mostly men) are realizing the pitfalls of that and are opting out.

You have the unlimited ability to contract. If you wish to contract with 3 partners, have at it. But if you want a government licenses, then you will have to stick with one partner of the opposite sex.

You shouldn't have to have a license to marry (and it didn't use to exist). Similarly, you shouldn't be forced to change your definition of marriage, that it is between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreating - "and they become one flesh".

However, this won't change the problem because

a) Unless you get rid of all taxes, there is always going to be a reason to tax married couples raising children less. From my point of view, homosexual activists are some of the most self-serving, greedy sc*b*kets, and will always try to dip their hand into the children's jar. And yeah, that probably has two meanings

b) So much of homosexuality is based on rape. They will continue to look for ways to "do in" those they hate. This doesn't change the forced education of children into the gay lifestyle, hate laws to silence critics, discrimination rights to attack faith based organizations, etc etc. Marriage rights is an excuse to provoke, its not the real reason. I could be wrong about that. But I'm not. Look at the other things.

 

[Ninja Homer]

First, I have to admit that I only read the OP and the last page or so of this thread, so sorry if this has been said already.

Once you know the facts about marriage licenses, it's very easy to see that the whole concept of government being involved in marriages is a sham.

Marriage licenses didn't exist until after slavery was abolished. The first marriage licensing laws were only for interracial couples that wanted to get married. These laws were basically created because white fathers didn't want their sons or daughters marrying ex-slaves, bringing shame to their families.

Later on, everybody was calling for equal rights. So what they did to make it equal was make marriage licenses required for everybody, rather than just getting rid of marriage license laws all together. Rather than making everybody free to marry according to their religion, they set it up so that everybody goes into contract with government when they get married.

Now when 2 people get married, it isn't just between them; the government is also a partner. Any products as a result of that marriage are the property of those 2 people and the government (here's where the scary-wrong stuff happens). If there are children produced as a result of this marriage, the government takes partial ownership of them. That's right, read it again, the government takes partial ownership of all children born in this country. If a child is born out of wedlock, it is considered a common law marriage, and the government takes partial ownership of the children that way. Children the government owns are given a serial # (social security #) at birth, and the government collects a percentage of the profits that child makes for their entire life... that's what taxes are.

Homosexuals have a good thing going. I really don't understand why they want in on the marriage license scam. I understand there are certain issues such as inheritances going to next of kin rather than their gay life partner, but they should be fighting to change those broken systems rather than fighting to be included in the marriage license scam. The government would absolutely love it if homosexuals are allowed to marry, because then they can take possession of their children. With technological advances in birthing techniques, "test tube babies" may be the only people born in the US who could be legally free, and the government would love to close this loophole.

It's the typical problem-solution method. They get the media to create the problem (homosexuals aren't equal because they can't get legally married) then offer a solution, and the people will demand it, not understanding what the hell they're asking for.

Anyway, to make a long story short, the only sensible way for everybody to have equal marriage rights is to get the government the hell out of the marriage business, and leave it to religions or just to individuals to make up their own minds.

 

[BeFranklin]

The government would absolutely love it if homosexuals are allowed to marry, because then they can take possession of their children.

Thats the problem with homosexuals getting married because they biologically can't do the whole purpose of getting married, children. Even test tube babies would only be 1 partner, and certainly not natural birth.

Gays should stop being infantile, and blaming everyone else for the basic biological function of nature.

And many people who are gay were raped as kids; or as someone has put it, homosexuals aren't born, they are recruited. This is something that should be treated, not applauded.

 

[chwisch87]

As a gay man myself, i personally find that marriage should be no business of the state but a private contract between however many people want to enter it. However that being said, there are many state and federal benefits to marriage. Such as spousal privilege and hospital visitation but more importantly taxes. Heterosexual couples can file jointly on their income tax statements and thus pay substantially less than their homosexual counterparts. Gay couples (lesbians notably) have and raise children all the time and many longitudinal studies show that there is no adverse effect on the children. If you believe otherwise that children should be raised in only your ideal situation then you must give also that children must then be placed and only raised in homes you see as idea. Therefore you take away the right of people to raise children and give essentially ownership of that child to the state. I do not want a civil union as to me separate is not and never will be equal. I will not bow down to the irrational belief in the equivalent of a flying spaghetti monster in the sky.

 

[Feenix566]

Surely, straight couples worked really hard and paid taxes to get their marriage rights and it's not fair gays get them just by voting, right? I can understand, because that's how I was told we shouldn't allow wetbacks into our country to get the same rights we worked our lives for.

Nobody works for their rights. Human rights are something you're born with. Like Thomas Jefferson said, they're self-evident.

Homosexuals are born with the same exact rights as everyone else. We ignore that fact at our society's peril.

However: marriage is not a right. Marriage is two things: a religious institution, and a contract. Freedom of religion is a right. So the government has no place being involved in any religious institution. Property ownership and equal protection under the law are also rights, so the government has no place distinguisihing between any two individuals on any basis as far as enforcement of proerty rights are concerned. So from both religious and contractual perspectives, the government has no place saying one group of people can get married and another cannot.

 

[chwisch87]

However Feenix when we have a government-marriage under equal protection then yes gay couples have a right and there is no way to logically/philosophically prove gay couples shouldn't be entitled to marriage baring in mind that there are certain rights that comes with marriage (marriage penalty). While yes you can say that marriage shouldn't be a product of government involvement but while it is, then the government does have a say in it.

 

[G-Wohl]

I fear we are a culture crippled by political correctness. We no longer are allowed to disagree on any issue without being labeled "hateful". I love my brother, I love my neighbors, it is not my business what they do in this matter (that is between them and G-d), but I just want the freedom to teach my children what the Bible says on this matter without being labeled hateful. I teach them to love and respect others....even if they do not agree with their ways. My children know that others make different decisions. When they become of age, they will have to make their own decisions. I may not agree with them all, but again, that is their journey between them and G-d.

Josh...I agree with you when you say "When government enforces values, it's tyranny, when values shape the government, it's freedom." However both sides are currently asking the government to enforce values, both sides currently want their own form of tyranny.

No. NO! Wrong, wrong wrong.

The Constitution protects your right to practice your crazy, bigoted, hateful religion, but that's it. It doesn't garner you any right to practice it "without being labeled hateful." If you want to practice your religion and preach god and other biblical nonsense, that's your right as a citizen, but there is absolutely no conditional statement in the Constitution that demands you be allowed to practice your religion without being scorned by more open-minded individuals. We also have freedoms to speak our minds and label anybody hateful as we please.

Currently, there is no federal law saying that gay marriage is illegal. That means that, by default, gay marriage is legal in this country. That's simply what the 10th amendment says. The states have to in turn disallow or allow gay marriage in order to have any proper ruling on the matter. That's the state's prerogative.

There's a more complicated issue involved, however, once we reach the issue of state's rights. Marriage, in context of the states, is simply a contract. It's a service, provided by the state, that validates a contract between two people. If gay people are unable to use this service like the rest of the citizens of that state can, then the issue of equal public treatment arises. Gay people pay taxes to fund the marriage services in their state, just like straight people do. If they are denied this service because of their race, then they are in turn not being treated equally by a governmental service that is, by law, required to never discriminate based on race/gender/orientation/nationality/etc.

All constitutionalists and libertarians, therefore, must recognize the inherent right, under most cases, that gay people have to marry. They have the right to call it whatever the hell they want, just as the bigoted and backwards churches have the right to deny a gay couple their services in conducting a marriage ceremony (which, of course, is meaningless without state validation, which is what the actual debate should be about).

 

[SeanEdwards]

We also have freedoms to speak our minds and label anybody hateful as we please.

That on it's own would be fine, but with the state passing anti-discrimination laws, and treating bigotry as a crime, calling someone hateful goes way beyond mere free speech. Instead it has become a virtual criminal accusation. Our society does not allow individuals the freedom to hate.

If gay people are unable to use this service like the rest of the citizens of that state can, then the issue of equal public treatment arises.

This is an entirely false statement. Marriage rights are the same for everyone. Everyone IS treated equally, because everyone has exactly the same right to get married. Gay people can get married. They just don't get to redefine marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman.

Gay people pay taxes to fund the marriage services in their state, just like straight people do. If they are denied this service because of their race, then they are in turn not being treated equally by a governmental service that is, by law, required to never discriminate based on race/gender/orientation/nationality/etc.

And blind people pay taxes that support building streetlights that they can't use also. Big freaking deal. For that matter, consider the injustice towards single people that get none of these tax perks and other incentives offered by the state to families.

Oh, and gayness is not a race.

All constitutionalists and libertarians, therefore, must recognize the inherent right, under most cases, that gay people have to marry.

They have that right, same as everyone else. Nobody is saying gay people can't marry, just that they must find a person of the opposite gender, just like everyone else, in order to do so.