fix
Member
You're pretty much right on up to this point. Many of us belive that getting an abortion is infringing on another's rights.
So what is your take on Gay Marriage??
- Thread starter rauchman
- Start date
- Status
You're pretty much right on up to this point. Many of us belive that getting an abortion is infringing on another's rights.
Marriage is between the individuals being married and their religious figures. Government has no legitimate business in it.
As for homosexuality being a subject in school, Gunfyter, the solution there is to get government out of the education business too. They don't belong there either.
As for homosexuality being a subject in school, Gunfyter, the solution there is to get government out of the education business too. They don't belong there either.
Nathanael_Greene
Member
I think the government has a role in establishing limits of marriage.
If it isn't government's job to defend the core values of society, what is its job?
If it isn't government's job to defend the core values of society, what is its job?
QuarterBoreGunner
Member
Gunfyter- why should it be taught at all? My point is why should the subject even come up? Is straight and narrow marriage a school subject now? No? Oh. Then why would gay marriage be taught?
I say if it's not harming anyone, where's the problem? It's none of my business (except that I've been to two jolly wedding receptions in the past three weeks, and two happier couples you've never seen).
And please don't start on the 'sanctity of marriage'- When Britney Spears can get married in a tube top in Las Vegas and then has it annulled 48 hours later and no one let's out a peep about the 'sanctity of marriage'... please.
edit: and on a personal note, I really dislike the term 'lifstyle' when referencing the GLBT community. To me 'lifestyle' implies that it's a choice. Like you wake up one morning and decide, 'you know what? I think today I'm going to go get me some of that hot gay action all the cool kids are talking about...'
*channelling the Kids In The Hall* "Think of it as a phase... a very long phase..."
fix
Member
You didn't notice my "peep" because it was totally off topic for this board and was not posted here. Trust me, there was a lot of peepin' going on.
Augustwest
Member
I don't recall seeing anything in the Constitution about defending the core values of society.
And Jim, I agree, and may have overstated my opinion a bit. The judicial branch may have a say, if said civil contracts are poorly executed. But I can't see the legislative or executive branches having a valid stake in these issues.
QuarterBoreGunner
Member
I agree fix. Much as I love a good discussion, this thread should be locked as OT.
To defends my rights and property, not impose my core values on others. Making others act like me is not "defending" me or my values.
You shouldn't marry your sister, but why is it the government's role to say you can't. Spare me the genetics answer; someone who will commit incest isn't going to stop because he doesn't have a stamped piece of paper from the courthouse. Please cross reference pro-gun argument #238: criminals don't obey gun laws.
M1911Owner
Member
In the early 1930's an anthropologist named J.D. Unwin set out to show that freeing society from its stifling sexual hangups would result in a flowering of the civilization. To that end, he studied the sexuality of 86 civilizations over the last 5000 years. (That was his profession, he was on anthropolgist.)
What he found was precisely the opposite of what he was looking for. He found that whenever a society moved away from the traditional family model of a man and a woman marrying, with the expectation of complete chastity before marriage and complete fidelity after marriage, that the society collapsed within three generations. Often, it was much faster than that--within a generation. He reported that he knew of no exceptions. [1]
To me, that is a very sobering lesson of history strongly suggesting that we might not want to tinker so dramatically with the fundamental structure of our society.
1. Unwin, J.D, Sex and Culture, Oxford University Press, 1934.
What he found was precisely the opposite of what he was looking for. He found that whenever a society moved away from the traditional family model of a man and a woman marrying, with the expectation of complete chastity before marriage and complete fidelity after marriage, that the society collapsed within three generations. Often, it was much faster than that--within a generation. He reported that he knew of no exceptions. [1]
To me, that is a very sobering lesson of history strongly suggesting that we might not want to tinker so dramatically with the fundamental structure of our society.
1. Unwin, J.D, Sex and Culture, Oxford University Press, 1934.
QuarterBoreGunner
Member
Grrrrrr [must not be pulled into this thread.... MUST NOT]
The goverment saying what people can and cannot do certainly meets the definition of civil rights discussion. People need not agree that marrying whom you wish is a civil right -- that disagreement itself is enough to qualify the discussion as appropriate to this board even if the ultimate concensus is that it is not a civil right.
rauchman
Member
fix,
Well said!!!
Well said!!!
lycanthrope
Member
Not surprising for a book of that era to have erroneous data. One such refute to this would be the Ealy Roman Empire when homosexual acts were pretty much accepted. It certaintly didn't fall within a few generations.
lycanthrope
Member
The same thing they are supposed to be doing now. Awarding joint custody or giving custody to the caregiver who is best able to meet the children's needs. Unfortunatley, our society has a bias that women are always the best caregivers.
fix
Member
Spoken like someone who is completely ignorant of history. The early Roman Empire was pretty much totally intolerant. It wasn't until the later years that immorality ran rampant...and we all know what happened shortly afterwards.
lycanthrope
Member
I think what happened next was Christianity........
We can argue timelines all day, but the point is that there was a period when homosexuailty was prevelant in both Roman and Greek cultures and is not necessarily a detriment to human progress....certainly not in a generation.
We can argue timelines all day, but the point is that there was a period when homosexuailty was prevelant in both Roman and Greek cultures and is not necessarily a detriment to human progress....certainly not in a generation.
fix
Member
There you have it folks. Christianity will lead to the fall of America...just like Rome.
Pardon me as I take my leave of this discussion.
Pardon me as I take my leave of this discussion.
lycanthrope
Member
Not to bash Christianity at all. It just goes to show that acceptance of homosexuality does not always predict traditional Christian moral decline in the future.
This is where I tend to part ways with mainstream conservative politics. I'll never understand how a group can be so supportive of one right (RKBA), and so against another (freedom of religion). How Christianity became the basis for U.S. law is a point of confusion for me.
I know it's a touchy subject, but moral or religion based laws are just as bad as the emotional "think of the children!" laws the libs come up with. When several congressmen quoted the freaking bible in their arguments against cloning technology, I was rather disappointed. This isn't a supposed to be a theocracy.
If a couple guys want to get hitched, more power to them. We all have a right to the pursuit of happiness, regardless of who we choose to jump in the sack with.
I know it's a touchy subject, but moral or religion based laws are just as bad as the emotional "think of the children!" laws the libs come up with. When several congressmen quoted the freaking bible in their arguments against cloning technology, I was rather disappointed. This isn't a supposed to be a theocracy.
If a couple guys want to get hitched, more power to them. We all have a right to the pursuit of happiness, regardless of who we choose to jump in the sack with.
As long as they don't hurt anyone else people should be allowed to do what they want.
Marriage should not be a government sanctioned contract in the first place.
Live together or marry according to your beliefs and leave me and the government out of it.
If you can convince 50 women or 50 men to marry you at once whoopdee
doo how does that affect me?
Marriage should not be a government sanctioned contract in the first place.
Live together or marry according to your beliefs and leave me and the government out of it.
If you can convince 50 women or 50 men to marry you at once whoopdee
doo how does that affect me?
Jim March
Member
Fix: if marriage was about kids, the elderly and infertile would be barred from marriage. They're not. So much for that argument.
All: There is no way in hell I will ever fight for my rights while fighting to limit somebody else's rights. Ain't gonna happen.
The various comments about getting the .gov out of marriage completely are on track, ditto education, but until that happens there are MANY financial advantages gained by marriage.
Second, discrimination IS unconstitutional. The precidents set by the various government officials such as Gavin Newsom breaking a law they know is unconstitutional is a good one - and NOT an immoral or illegal act.
Folks: how many here would violate the gun carry laws of a screwed-up state like California or Illinois if the need was serious enough, and have no embarassment about same later? I know I would, and indeed have. There is NO difference between that and the stance taken by Gavin Newsom and the rest of the crowd perfoming gay marriages.
All: There is no way in hell I will ever fight for my rights while fighting to limit somebody else's rights. Ain't gonna happen.
The various comments about getting the .gov out of marriage completely are on track, ditto education, but until that happens there are MANY financial advantages gained by marriage.
Second, discrimination IS unconstitutional. The precidents set by the various government officials such as Gavin Newsom breaking a law they know is unconstitutional is a good one - and NOT an immoral or illegal act.
Folks: how many here would violate the gun carry laws of a screwed-up state like California or Illinois if the need was serious enough, and have no embarassment about same later? I know I would, and indeed have. There is NO difference between that and the stance taken by Gavin Newsom and the rest of the crowd perfoming gay marriages.
lee n. field
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 4,324
The problem with these sorts of things is ususally too much government. The gov't gives bennies, tax breaks, etc. to married folk vs. not. Some gov't or other licenses marriage, and thus requires you to get their approval for marriage.
So be it.
So be it.
Go ahead and close this thread. Like any on this subject and several others we get the "My way or the highway" you are a bunch of ignorant hicks replys. It isn't anybodys business but those involved. Making it your business distracts from what you should be doing. Taking care of your own instead of taking care of everyone else. If you are going to let government tell you what to do in this instance, what else are you prepaired to let them tell you to do? Once it starts you don't get to pick and choose. What if government decides that Babtist are evil and outlaw them. How about Methodists, or any of the others.
- Status
