Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pro Gay Marriage

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 1:33:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, me, CP is now in favor of gay marriage.

I have been thinking and came to a very libertarian conclusion that marriage, a social institution, should be in NO WAY sanctioned by the government. I don't believe the government should recognize any marriage but instead that marriage needs to be done solely through a third party.

For example:

I can marry my wife through the Lutheran Church.

Doug can marry Dan at Gay Love Shack Emporium

etc

These are social contracts done between two people in the presence of a third party. The government has no business here.

Now, because I don't believe in government sanctioned marriage I no longer care whether gays marry or not and therefore am, in a way, pro gay marriage.

With my anti-government marriage idea we would have to eliminate the tax credits and "marriage rights" currently given but since I'm in favor of a flat tax and the 14th Amendment this isn't such a stretch.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 1:40:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Now believe in 85% tax rates for the wealthy and you will officially be one of us!
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:04:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 1:33:43 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Yes, me, CP is now in favor of gay marriage.

I have been thinking and came to a very libertarian conclusion that marriage, a social institution, should be in NO WAY sanctioned by the government. I don't believe the government should recognize any marriage but instead that marriage needs to be done solely through a third party.

For example:

I can marry my wife through the Lutheran Church.

Doug can marry Dan at Gay Love Shack Emporium

etc

These are social contracts done between two people in the presence of a third party. The government has no business here.

Now, because I don't believe in government sanctioned marriage I no longer care whether gays marry or not and therefore am, in a way, pro gay marriage.

With my anti-government marriage idea we would have to eliminate the tax credits and "marriage rights" currently given but since I'm in favor of a flat tax and the 14th Amendment this isn't such a stretch.

What the fuck holy jesus fucking mary in her mouth why is water running upwards?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:15:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is a joke, right? This is a joke. A necessary precondition to jokes is that they must be funny. That's what I've heard, actually.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:19:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 1:33:43 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Yes, me, CP is now in favor of gay marriage.

I have been thinking and came to a very libertarian conclusion that marriage, a social institution, should be in NO WAY sanctioned by the government. I don't believe the government should recognize any marriage but instead that marriage needs to be done solely through a third party.

For example:

I can marry my wife through the Lutheran Church.

Doug can marry Dan at Gay Love Shack Emporium

etc

These are social contracts done between two people in the presence of a third party. The government has no business here.

Now, because I don't believe in government sanctioned marriage I no longer care whether gays marry or not and therefore am, in a way, pro gay marriage.

With my anti-government marriage idea we would have to eliminate the tax credits and "marriage rights" currently given but since I'm in favor of a flat tax and the 14th Amendment this isn't such a stretch.

In other words, you're position really hasn't changed except for the fact that you are now against ALL marriage.

You see, when people talk about this subject, they aren't talking about third-party private recognition. There is nothing in place that currently prevents one person, saying to two other people, "You are now married."

Since nothing is preventing that now, then there is no issue involving that.

When people talk about being pro or con Gay Marriage, they are necessarily talking about the government extending (or at least not retracting) official recognition of marriage to include (or at least not exclude) same-sex couples.

So, unless you are in favor of that, you aren't pro-gay-marriage.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:39:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Marriage is a church-borne institution. As a disestablishmentarian society, we need to retain religious rights and uphold their ban on homosexual marriages, which are clearly sin-based.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:41:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:39:30 AM, Ren wrote:
Marriage is a church-borne institution. As a disestablishmentarian society, we need to retain religious rights and uphold their ban on homosexual marriages, which are clearly sin-based.

Interesting. Which church gave birth to marriage?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:42:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:41:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:39:30 AM, Ren wrote:
Marriage is a church-borne institution. As a disestablishmentarian society, we need to retain religious rights and uphold their ban on homosexual marriages, which are clearly sin-based.

Interesting. Which church gave birth to marriage?

In our current society, Christianity.

I mean, sure, you can say that other societies have marriage of different foundations, but we don't hold those ceremonies, now do we?

I do believe that homosexuals should be able to have pagan marriages exclusively. That should not infringe on the Christian moral basis that this society has chosen for itself.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:45:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ren, are Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish marriages not valid in this nation? What about Catholic marriages (since Protestant marriages are our "foundation").

Marriage is historically a social institution. It predates religion.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:46:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'll go ahead and answer my question. All other religious and secular marriages are permitted in our society. Marriages not occurring in Protestant tradition are still considered valid.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:47:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:45:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ren, are Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish marriages not valid in this nation? What about Catholic marriages (since Protestant marriages are our "foundation").

Marriage is historically a social institution. It predates religion.

Jewish marriages, given their ties to Christianity, of course, have always been accepted.

Hindu and Muslim marriages are accepted, but they're pagantry. I didn't indicate that pagan marriages don't exist, but they need to be married under those sanctions. There is no reason to accept homosexual marriages under Christian law and under God.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:48:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:42:56 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:41:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:39:30 AM, Ren wrote:
Marriage is a church-borne institution. As a disestablishmentarian society, we need to retain religious rights and uphold their ban on homosexual marriages, which are clearly sin-based.

Interesting. Which church gave birth to marriage?

In our current society, Christianity.

I mean, sure, you can say that other societies have marriage of different foundations, but we don't hold those ceremonies, now do we?

Yes, we do.


I do believe that homosexuals should be able to have pagan marriages exclusively. That should not infringe on the Christian moral basis that this society has chosen for itself.

The United States Government has not selected Christian marriages to be the only official form of Marriage.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:50:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:47:28 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:45:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ren, are Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish marriages not valid in this nation? What about Catholic marriages (since Protestant marriages are our "foundation").

Marriage is historically a social institution. It predates religion.

Jewish marriages, given their ties to Christianity, of course, have always been accepted.

Hindu and Muslim marriages are accepted, but they're pagantry. I didn't indicate that pagan marriages don't exist, but they need to be married under those sanctions. There is no reason to accept homosexual marriages under Christian law and under God.

LOL, Islam is very close to Christianity as well, but that's besides the point.

The fact is that even secular marriages are acceptable. If I decided to elope with my next door neighbor tomorrow, I could go to a government institution and obtain a license without any religious ceremony.

Also, the United States is not a Christian nation and is not based on Christian law. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:54:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:48:19 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:42:56 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:41:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:39:30 AM, Ren wrote:
Marriage is a church-borne institution. As a disestablishmentarian society, we need to retain religious rights and uphold their ban on homosexual marriages, which are clearly sin-based.

Interesting. Which church gave birth to marriage?

In our current society, Christianity.

I mean, sure, you can say that other societies have marriage of different foundations, but we don't hold those ceremonies, now do we?

Yes, we do.


I do believe that homosexuals should be able to have pagan marriages exclusively. That should not infringe on the Christian moral basis that this society has chosen for itself.

The United States Government has not selected Christian marriages to be the only official form of Marriage.

Clearly, it has.

Christian marriages are legal and gay marriages are illegal, are they not?

I don't remember the last time I've ever seen or heard of a pagan ceremony. I call BS.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:57:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:54:27 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:48:19 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:42:56 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:41:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:39:30 AM, Ren wrote:
Marriage is a church-borne institution. As a disestablishmentarian society, we need to retain religious rights and uphold their ban on homosexual marriages, which are clearly sin-based.

Interesting. Which church gave birth to marriage?

In our current society, Christianity.

I mean, sure, you can say that other societies have marriage of different foundations, but we don't hold those ceremonies, now do we?

Yes, we do.


I do believe that homosexuals should be able to have pagan marriages exclusively. That should not infringe on the Christian moral basis that this society has chosen for itself.

The United States Government has not selected Christian marriages to be the only official form of Marriage.

Clearly, it has.

Christian marriages are legal and gay marriages are illegal, are they not?

I don't remember the last time I've ever seen or heard of a pagan ceremony. I call BS.

Um, Hindu, Sikh, Druidic, and even nonreligious marriages are permitted in this country. The United States has not selected Christian marriages at all. It has selected heterosexual marriages of any sort. Again, I can go down with any male to the office and get a license without any ceremony whatsoever and society will consider me married.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 10:00:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:57:49 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:54:27 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:48:19 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:42:56 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:41:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:39:30 AM, Ren wrote:
Marriage is a church-borne institution. As a disestablishmentarian society, we need to retain religious rights and uphold their ban on homosexual marriages, which are clearly sin-based.

Interesting. Which church gave birth to marriage?

In our current society, Christianity.

I mean, sure, you can say that other societies have marriage of different foundations, but we don't hold those ceremonies, now do we?

Yes, we do.


I do believe that homosexuals should be able to have pagan marriages exclusively. That should not infringe on the Christian moral basis that this society has chosen for itself.

The United States Government has not selected Christian marriages to be the only official form of Marriage.

Clearly, it has.

Christian marriages are legal and gay marriages are illegal, are they not?

I don't remember the last time I've ever seen or heard of a pagan ceremony. I call BS.

Um, Hindu, Sikh, Druidic, and even nonreligious marriages are permitted in this country. The United States has not selected Christian marriages at all. It has selected heterosexual marriages of any sort. Again, I can go down with any male to the office and get a license without any ceremony whatsoever and society will consider me married.

That's not a marriage, that is a civil union.

Only licensed members of the clergy can marry in this country. Didn't you know that?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 10:01:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 10:00:24 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:57:49 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:54:27 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:48:19 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:42:56 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:41:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:39:30 AM, Ren wrote:
Marriage is a church-borne institution. As a disestablishmentarian society, we need to retain religious rights and uphold their ban on homosexual marriages, which are clearly sin-based.

Interesting. Which church gave birth to marriage?

In our current society, Christianity.

I mean, sure, you can say that other societies have marriage of different foundations, but we don't hold those ceremonies, now do we?

Yes, we do.


I do believe that homosexuals should be able to have pagan marriages exclusively. That should not infringe on the Christian moral basis that this society has chosen for itself.

The United States Government has not selected Christian marriages to be the only official form of Marriage.

Clearly, it has.

Christian marriages are legal and gay marriages are illegal, are they not?

I don't remember the last time I've ever seen or heard of a pagan ceremony. I call BS.

Um, Hindu, Sikh, Druidic, and even nonreligious marriages are permitted in this country. The United States has not selected Christian marriages at all. It has selected heterosexual marriages of any sort. Again, I can go down with any male to the office and get a license without any ceremony whatsoever and society will consider me married.

That's not a marriage, that is a civil union.

No, it's a marriage.
Only licensed members of the clergy can marry in this country. Didn't you know that?

False. Civil appointees can conduct secular marriages in this nation.

http://www.ehow.com...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 10:06:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Usually the state laws provide any recognized member of the clergy (such as a Priest, Minister, Rabbi, Imam, Cantor, Ethical Culture Leader, etc.), or a judge, a court clerk, and justices of the peace have authority to perform a marriage. However in some states even the clergy must be first certified or licensed.

Some states have laws that permit other persons to apply for authority to perform marriage ceremonies. For example, California law permits anyone to apply for permission to become a Deputy Commissioner of Marriages -- the grant of authority is valid for one day -- and thus officiate at the wedding of family or friends on that one day.


http://marriage.about.com...

As this source demonstrates, there are several secular individuals who can perform marriage ceremonies in our society.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 10:09:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:54:27 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:48:19 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:42:56 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:41:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:39:30 AM, Ren wrote:
Marriage is a church-borne institution. As a disestablishmentarian society, we need to retain religious rights and uphold their ban on homosexual marriages, which are clearly sin-based.

Interesting. Which church gave birth to marriage?

In our current society, Christianity.

I mean, sure, you can say that other societies have marriage of different foundations, but we don't hold those ceremonies, now do we?

Yes, we do.


I do believe that homosexuals should be able to have pagan marriages exclusively. That should not infringe on the Christian moral basis that this society has chosen for itself.

The United States Government has not selected Christian marriages to be the only official form of Marriage.

Clearly, it has.

Christian marriages are legal and gay marriages are illegal, are they not?

All marriages between different gendered individuals, regardless of religions (or non-religious) foundation are legal.


I don't remember the last time I've ever seen or heard of a pagan ceremony. I call BS.

http://www.circlesanctuary.org...
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 10:19:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yeah... the title seems a little misleading. Like someone else said, you aren't saying that the government should recognize gay marriages, which is how the term "pro gay marriage" is generally used in political encounters... You're just saying that the government shouldn't have anything to do with heterosexual or homosexual marriages, so wouldn't that actually make you against gay marriage in that sense?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 10:20:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 10:19:03 AM, Rusty wrote:
Yeah... the title seems a little misleading. Like someone else said, you aren't saying that the government should recognize gay marriages, which is how the term "pro gay marriage" is generally used in political encounters... You're just saying that the government shouldn't have anything to do with heterosexual or homosexual marriages, so wouldn't that actually make you against gay marriage in that sense?

^^^ Word. I mean, think about it -- if you're against governmental interference, then you're against everything, obviously.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 10:26:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
To be fair, I guess he did specify that he was "in a way" pro gay marriage, but the title and opening line are still pretty darn misleading.
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 11:15:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That's not pro gay marriage. It's pro church-choice in the matter, a position which the vast majority of churches will reject. Still, I'm glad that you've realized that this is the only way to "preserve" marriage.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 1:33:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:47:28 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:45:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ren, are Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish marriages not valid in this nation? What about Catholic marriages (since Protestant marriages are our "foundation").

Marriage is historically a social institution. It predates religion.

Jewish marriages, given their ties to Christianity, of course, have always been accepted.

Hindu and Muslim marriages are accepted, but they're pagantry. I didn't indicate that pagan marriages don't exist, but they need to be married under those sanctions. There is no reason to accept homosexual marriages under Christian law and under God.

Congratulations you have violated the first amendment ... No such christian law in the US, wasn't even founded on those principals, and God does not exist
Thank you for voting!
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 5:22:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am indifferent towards gay marriage but since I no longer oppose it I am for it technically.

I don't care if gays marry. I no longer care. This stems from my views on government marriage but not does not hinge upon them.
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 5:24:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 5:22:15 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I am indifferent towards gay marriage but since I no longer oppose it I am for it technically.

I don't care if gays marry. I no longer care. This stems from my views on government marriage but not does not hinge upon them.

Wow so DDO has cracked even the most conservative of the conservatives, huh? It all begins with a single step...you'll be an anti-statist libertarian within a year :)
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 7:23:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:47:28 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:45:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ren, are Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish marriages not valid in this nation? What about Catholic marriages (since Protestant marriages are our "foundation").

Marriage is historically a social institution. It predates religion.

Jewish marriages, given their ties to Christianity, of course, have always been accepted.

Hindu and Muslim marriages are accepted, but they're pagantry. I didn't indicate that pagan marriages don't exist, but they need to be married under those sanctions. There is no reason to accept homosexual marriages under Christian law and under God.

How are they considered 'pagantry'? Hinduism and Islam fall under the primary world religions. Yes, there is no reason to accept homosexual marriages under Christian law and under God, but please recognize that the United States does not bear a theocracy-based legislative system/Christian law nor is it 'under God'. We maintain our status as a secular haven.
turn down for h'what
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 7:25:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 5:22:15 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I am indifferent towards gay marriage but since I no longer oppose it I am for it technically.

I don't care if gays marry. I no longer care. This stems from my views on government marriage but not does not hinge upon them.

+1
Nice to see you coming into the light, my friend. If not proponent, an apathetic behavior towards it will still suffice.
turn down for h'what