What should Romney/Republicans do about gay marriage?

[level.eleven]

Wow, this thread derailed rather quickly.

Yeah, I thought it would be a fun topic to discuss. My interest stemmed from the GOP memo. Oh well.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Thomas Paine was correct... the time will not be better later.

I often wonder what our children and grandchildren will think of us when they look back and ask, "Why did they not do anything when the opportunity better?"

He is probably correct that the time will not be better later, but it truly will have to get worse before it can get better.

The people(sheep) of this country are not strong enough or knowledgeable enough to know that you cannot keep taking and taking and taking, they have have to be cut off at the knees so to speak, their freebies have to be ended and I think it will take a financial collapse for that to ever happen.

 

[Liberty's Teeth]

Nothing. Marriage is between a man and a woman, by definition. If they want to define other things they can. Unions between man and man, woman and woman, donkey and elephant can have their own laws and specifications.

 

[J_Wales]

Yeah, I thought it would be a fun topic to discuss. My interest stemmed from the GOP memo. Oh well.

Discussing what the GOP shlild do about it in response to the democrat party is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

We have bigger issues to focus on.

I'll step out of the discussion.

Best regards.

 

[ViperJock]

They should butt out of the marriage business. Gay or straight.

Indeed.

 

[GBuck]

Nothing. Marriage is between a man and a woman, by definition.

Marriage (by definition)
noun 1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.

b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.



2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.

3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.

4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.

5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Marriage (by definition)
noun 1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.

b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.



2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.

3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.

4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.

5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.

I question b:. When was it added to what dictionary? Meriam Webster disagrees with those definitions

 

[mrjarrell]

Nothing. Marriage is between a man and a woman, by definition. If they want to define other things they can. Unions between man and man, woman and woman, donkey and elephant can have their own laws and specifications.

Hmmm...history says differently. There have been man and many women, same sex marriages in early christianity and other cultures, the kings of Ireland married a horse. There've been many definitions. Shoot, the Romney family were polygamists a couple of generations ago. Not sure where this one man, one woman stuff is coming from.

 

[GBuck]

I question b:. When was it added to what dictionary? Meriam Webster disagrees with those definitions

I don't know. Came off of Dictionary.com unaltered. Also, take 'B' out and it still is fitting to be interpreted differently than man and woman.

 

[handgun]

While i will always believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

I also believe that a social contract between two consenting adults is also in order. So those who choose to live an alternate lifestyle and in relationship with each other should be protected and they should not be be infringed upon. That social contract shall have the same privileges as a married couple (man+woman)

While i will never agree what two gay people do. I believe it is their right.

 

[GBuck]

While i will always believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

I also believe that a social contract between two consenting adults is also in order. So those who choose to live an alternate lifestyle and in relationship with each other should be protected and they should not be be infringed upon. That social contract shall have the same privileges as a married couple (man+woman)

While i will never agree what two gay people do. I believe it is their right.

Thank you and a BIG

I COMPLETELY understand personally objecting to something you religiously or morally disagree with. That is entirely you're right. I respect the fact that you can do that and still understand that it does not mean that everyone has to be against it for the same religious or moral reasons. The government is not and should not be in the business of setting religious or moral norms. It is not right that I get tax benefits and a gay man does not because I happen to love a woman. (they should be done away with all together, but we all know that won't happen)

 

[Bunnykid68]

While i will always believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

I also believe that a social contract between two consenting adults is also in order. So those who choose to live an alternate lifestyle and in relationship with each other should be protected and they should not be be infringed upon. That social contract shall have the same privileges as a married couple (man+woman)

While i will never agree what two gay people do. I believe it is their right.

Like I mentioned upthread, why should a gay couple or a married couple be afforded any more rights or privileges then me and my brother if we decide to live together?

Until my brother and myself can get the same rights as a married couple to hell with the gay marriage crowd

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Gay marriage is inevitable. Progressives have corrupted the pop-culture, our schools, and our churches...they have succeeded in normalizing homsexuality. I wonder what will be next.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Hmmm...history says differently. There have been man and many women, same sex marriages in early christianity and other cultures, the kings of Ireland married a horse. There've been many definitions. Shoot, the Romney family were polygamists a couple of generations ago. Not sure where this one man, one woman stuff is coming from.

Don't forget about the pedphilia and incest that existed in history too.

 

[mrjarrell]

Don't forget about the pedphilia and incest that existed in history too.

They aren't related to the subject at hand. No matter how much you wish to equate them.

 

[handgun]

Like I mentioned upthread, why should a gay couple or a married couple be afforded any more rights or privileges then me and my brother if we decide to live together?

Until my brother and myself can get the same rights as a married couple to hell with the gay marriage crowd

I didnt say marriage. I said social contract. I believe that you should be allowed a social contract between you and your brother.

Maybe the government needs to stop giving benifits to married individals all together.

Why should i pay more if i never decided to get married(stress) or have children. While both can and are a blessing so i am told. I am not certain it is so. I just see it as a potential loose the the car house and pay out the ying yang for child support /discipline spousal support etc..

But if you allow gay marriage you are going to have those nut jobz who want to marry their dog have relations with it (beastialty), or those that wish to marry objects such as their car, gun etc. Thus the need for a social contract.

 

[GBuck]

I didnt say marriage. I said social contract. I believe that you should be allowed a social contract between you and your brother.

Maybe the government needs to stop giving benifits to married individals all together.

Why should i pay more if i never decided to get married(stress) or have children. While both can and are a blessing so i am told. I am not certain it is so. I just see it as a potential loose the the car house and pay out the ying yang for child support /discipline spousal support etc..

But if you allow gay marriage you are going to have those nut jobz who want to marry their dog have relations with it (beastialty), or those that wish to marry objects such as their car, gun etc. Thus the need for a social contract.

As far as the government is concerned, that's all that marriage is, a social contract.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

They aren't related to the subject at hand. No matter how much you wish to equate them.

Homosexuality was widely considered to be taboo only 20 or so years ago...just like pedafillia and incest still are. I know you folks that have bought into promoting this as the civil rights cause of your generation, so you disparatly must separate this behavior from all other human frailties so that you may promote it and convince the sheeple it's normal. We don't want to confuse the issue, do we?

ETA: I forgot to answer the original question. I believe we should follow the constitution. The federal government should extricate its self from these matters and leave it up to the states or the people.

 

[Expat]

They aren't related to the subject at hand. No matter how much you wish to equate them.

We haven't been on the subject at hand since about post 10

 

[Pocketman]

Exactly, "nib out" isn't an option. A position has to be taken.

Some interesting commentary from Fox New's Shep Smith the other day. Are Republicans on the wrong side of history?

Shep Smith, call your office - POLITICO.com

The Republicans need to take a position, but they will likely not, largely because they are mixed on this. The "nib out" is the only good long term option IMO. Start with removing the marriage penalty etc. from the tax code. That in itself would take some of the wind out of the gay marriage proponents sails.

Let's face it, the only genuine solution to this is getting the government out of the marriage business. Marriage laws should be left to the individual states. A "civil union" type position could be taken that recognizes for legal purposes marriages and civil unions, giving "spousal" rights. This too would knock some of the wind out of the sails.

Many of the issues facing our nation were brought on by government involvement where they don't belong. Not too different from our foreign policy interventions.