The truth about gay marriage and the government

Hello, I am new to this forum so be gentle. However since the issue of gay marriage is such a hot button issue today I thought I would chime in on it. I want to say that I personally find the idea of two men engaged in sexual intercourse quite revolting, I see two men on the street kissing and its strikes me as weird. However I acknowledge that those are my own personal biases and prejudices. I can separate my own prejudice from my political stance on issues. So while I find the act and concept strange, I am also very supportive of gay marriage/gay rights for one very important reason. It is not the role of the government to judge whether or not marriage between two men or two women should be legal.

Religious people who point to the Bible as a reason to ban gay marriage are the ones who are the most vehement in their protests. If they do not want to conduct a ceremony in their church, that is absolutely fine. That is private property and if you do not want to allow that on your property, you are well within your rights to prohibit it. However IMO religion has no place in government, so to attempt to inject their personal religious beliefs into government is sheer lunacy, particularly since the separation of church and state is one of the cornerstones of the United States. This is not a Christian nation, despite their arguments to the contrary, this was suppose to be a nation which welcomed all religious, political, and social beliefs, yet they want to enshrine their Biblical beliefs onto a secular government.

Moving on to the Republican party which is the party pushing for the banning of gay marriage. I lean more to towards Republicans than Democrats but I find the Republican stance on gay marriage to be quite contradictory. The core Republican principle is suppose to be limited government. Less regulation, lower taxes, more civil liberties, etc. However despite this being the core of the Republican party, they want to bring the government further into people's lives by having the state determine who can get married to who. This same argument can be made for stem cell research, abortion, etc.

For those claiming to be a slippery slope that will lead to bestiality or child marriage or other nonsense like that, leave that argument at the door. The key difference is that gay marriage is between two CONSENTING adults. So please, comments? criticisms?

 

It is always good to hear new voices on these topics.

I can relate to that, by looking at certain things that straight people do, which turn me off as well. Personally, I take that as onions and tomatoes; that is, for whatever reasons, some of us prefer one thing or the other. Raw fish? (No way!! I say.) I don't think too much about how straight people have sex, in the same way I don't think much about eating raw fish. If I see someone eating raw fish... yes, it looks 'strange' to me; that doesn't mean that it isn't normal in every way.

I'm with you there. We all have them.

I can do that for the sake of discussion; but my values tend to remain in place until I'm convinced to change something.

Amen to that!! You are spot-on correct!!

I agree wholeheartedly.

I was once deeply Conservative and voted Republican years ago... (unusual for a gay, Black man), but around the end of Ronald Reagan's tenure as President, I began to see the CLAWS of Christian Fundamentalism being hooked into the Republican Party. Right there at church, I could sense that many wanted to PUSH for laws which would limit freedoms and liberties; and I decided to abandon the Republican Party when prominent religious figures began to suggest that they wanted to elect politicians who would enact laws supporting their particular religious beliefs. I believed that I knew Jesus Christ, and I didn't think the Republicans were reflecting His character. Today, I have no doubt that the Right's anti-gay, anti-poor, anti-minority and anti-worker bias... isn't a reflection of Jesus Christ's character. Many today (especially in the Republican Party) are just 'stamping' religion onto their politics; that is disgusting to me.

Gay marriage, while not godly or moral in the eyes of some... will not hurt this nation. And the prejudices against homosexual people need to be mitigated, for there is no real/logical purpose or benefit in encouraging those prejudices. Homosexual people are tax payers, friends, relatives, policemen, firemen and soldiers; it is time we accept those human beings along with the rest.

 

I find the influence of religion on the whole debate incredibly unacceptable in a secular society.

And the worst thing about it is that there is this misguided belief and arrogance that religious faith is uniquely priviledged..above and beyond criticism (a quotation from Douglas Adams).

 

Yep. Barry Goldwater (a Conservative) got it right:

 

Well said. You and I think very alike here. By the way, welcome to the forums.

 

Agree with most of what you said.
Common sense is rare around these parts so Welcome to PF!

You will be introduced to the local trolls any moment now =)

 

troll here


and allow me to expand upon that

or a man and a woman
or a son and his mom
or a dad and his daughter
or 2 sisters

nothing more need be said. It is not the role of the govt. That is why I do not support any more govt intrusion whatsoever; I want less intrusion

oh, about your description of the Republicans core; do not confuse libertarians with conservatives

 

I think some have a problem distinguishing between 2 unrelated people marrying, and what would essentially be incest (which is some other issue).

 

to all and please note: Because I do not toe the gay agenda line I continue to have my posts disliked. I do not flame but simply present a counterpoint. Interesting isn't it

now, to the context. No, just because YOU want more govt intrusion does not make it a good thing. From your perspective the intrusion is good as long as your little group is satisfied. Please note how you quickly poo poo incest relationships. Why should they not also be included?

You see, you want the govt to continue their micromanagement of our lives and to break all of us down into tiny little special interest silos. I want them the heck out of our lives and to treat us as individuals only and who cares who we diddle or if we diddle at all. It's none of their business

 

I agree that ideally the government should stay out of the marriage business as I feel that marriage should be between individuals and god - not the government; however, what do you recommend the solution is with the facts that people are not going to give up their government benefits (aka marriage benefits) not is the government going to relinquish their power? Should gay people just **** and let the discriminatory practices continue or should they fight to be included?

I currently have to pay for child tax credits and marriage benefits but am unable to collect the same benefits - is this fair?
People should all be treated as individuals - unfortunately we do not live in this perfect world..

 

all single people pay for child tax credits. I love the flat tax concept

The more you keep stating your issues the more it should become clear to you that liberal govt has done you zero justice. Perhaps trying conservatism or libertarian is better for you. Liberals will do nothing but cause you more angst as your posts confirm

 

Where did you get the fact that I am a liberal? Because I support SSM?
I actually lean center right to far right on most issues.
I believe in small government, free choice, personal responsibility, and equal treatment/opportunity for all

Now please answer the question - Since we do not live in an ideal world and the government WILL NOT get out of the marriage issue should homosexuals push for the same rights of their heterosexual peers or should they just go away and be thankful they are not killed for being in a committed relationship with someone of the same sex?
Should we have also shut up about serving in the military?

I look forward to your total dodge.

 

no dodge at all and your brethren have asked me countelss times and I have answered

1: you do not double down on stupidity. If you claim to want less govt then you should not support more govt which is what you want. Thus, I question your sincerity and claims

2: govt has zero place with respect to marriage. IMO, marriage is a religious thing and if I want to jointly own property then get a contract. if I want someone to make decisions on my behalf then a PoA and/or living will to voice my desires.

I do not support one more inch of intrusion by the govt be it for those who have gay sex, incest, show too much butt crack, are union members whatever.

We are individuals and what we do in our personal lives is not to be regulated by the govt. The govt should only view us as individuals

By taking that path it also disembowels the attempt to legislate thought that homosexuality is normal (look up the definition of normal) or incest relationships are normal (again look up definition)


Give every individual no more or no less than the other and let their personal lives remain just that. It's called "personal liberty" not group or couple liberty.


hmmmm, not the hater or homophobe you were hoping to find eh???

 

One question: why do you use homosexuality and incest twice in the same sentence?

 

I have never said you are a "hater" nor a "homophobe" but you love to make assumptions so...

And yes, you dodged the question.
The government is not going to get out of the marriage business
Group A is benefiting while Group B is having to pay for said benefits while being denied equal treatment

Seeing is how getting the government our of marriage is not an option do you propose those that are being discriminated against fight for equal treatment or just allow things to continue on as they are? Two options.

 

the sooner we get rid of big govt liberals the sooner we can work on removing govt from our personal lives

one step at a time but you want to double down on stupid; your agenda is quite clear despite your claims

 

Planning a "final solution", are you?

 

Big government liberals?
Are those the same ones that turned a surplus into a 10 trillion dollar deficit?
Or are those the ones that demand keeping the evil gays out of the military?
No bid defense contracts?

Seems both parties are big government - they just want the government in different areas...

Your partisan bs is shining through.

Thanks for proving the dodge though =)

 

it is not I who wants big daddy govt to create yet another special interest silo based on of all things, having sex differently than others.

Where does it end with you big govt liberals?

Your actions speak louder than words..................conservative my eye; you are anything but

 

dodge, dodge, dodge

You have learned well from some on this forum, congratz!
Equal rights does not equal special rights. Dance around the issue all you want - doesn't change anything.

 

They should advocate for marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage because to be honest, there just isnt anything special about homosexuals that would justify such special treatment.

 

But how does it work then?
Let's say you marry your sister Dixon.
You said marriage is mainly about the wellbeing of children.
How would that work?
Would you and your sis have kids? Or won't you take the risk coz there's not much variety bloodline wise?

 

Thats marriage limited to heterosexual couples that is all about the wellbeing of the children. This new marriage extended to heterosexual and homosexual couples is all about forming stable homes. My sister and I would simply build a stable home together. Rubbing genitals doesnt endow one with superior household formation skills.

 

It does in 11 countries and the 12th one on the way.

Didn't realise marriage to you is about rubbing genitals if the couple doesn't have kids.
Way to redefine superficiality...

 

You are the one advocating for special treatment for homosexuals, AS IF rubbing genitals like a real mother and father somehow endows them with superior child raising capeabilities. More children being raised by a single parents and grandparent, than have ever been raised by homosexual couples.