What should Romney/Republicans do about gay marriage?

[Pocketman]

Marriage is something defined by Judaism and Christianity as the joining of a man and a woman, under God. That conjugal union expressed in love is exactly why man and woman were created, so that in their love for one another, they could pro-create. The family is the fabric that holds society together. Over the thousands of years, there has never been a ruler or king "marrying" another prince or king of another country or family, or some queen "marrying" another princess or queen. And back then, religion was tied very closely to politics. Pagan religious societies did not freely condone same sexes living together. The ones who did, died out. So history repeats itself.

Few disagree with the religious aspect of marriage. At issue is the government's involvement in such unions.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

Marriage is something defined by Judaism and Christianity as the joining of a man and a woman, under God. That conjugal union expressed in love is exactly why man and woman were created, so that in their love for one another, they could pro-create. The family is the fabric that holds society together. Over the thousands of years, there has never been a ruler or king "marrying" another prince or king of another country or family, or some queen "marrying" another princess or queen. And back then, religion was tied very closely to politics. Pagan religious societies did not freely condone same sexes living together. The ones who did, died out. So history repeats itself.

Few disagree with the religious aspect of marriage. At issue is the government's involvement in such unions.

Hence, my point, with the government. Dabbling in and trying to change a natural law is history repeating itself and so goes the United States into the cesspool drain where the ancient Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, and other great empires.

It is simply a matter of historical fact and well established court precedent that marriage as traditionally defined is a fundemental constiutional right. Marriage has been considered a fundemental consitutional right defended at the Federal level since the inception of this country; coming from English common law and well established in Supreme Court precedent. When we define things in ways that they are not, then there can only be Hell to pay.

Laws characteristically embody and reflect moral judgments. This is true of the law of contract and the law of murder, and it is no less true of the law of marriage. Laws should be made carefully so that they embody sound understandings of good and bad, right and wrong, justice and injustice; but as careful thinkers about law from Aristotle in ancient Greece to Dr. Martin Luther King in our own time have made clear, laws cannot be morally neutral, nor should we try to make them so. Efforts to mask the moral judgments embodied and expressed in our laws have no effect other than to wrap those judgments in a cloak of obscurity—creating a mere illusion of neutrality.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Government involvment makes it polygomy. How did marrage survive in this country before 1929 without the approval of our overlords? Their involvent marked the end of it being a religious institution of god between man and woman long ago. It is now a union by and for the state, not you, your wife and god. Its a menage' a trois. Your witnesses to your marrage mean nothing, only the state counts as a witness now.
We talk about saving something that no longer exists.

"Who gives the bride away to be married?"...the state does, its her daddy now.

 

[GBuck]

yea i'll be the bad guy, i dont want gay marriage. maybe the gov. should have never gotten into it, its beside the point now they did. personally i'd like for them to leave it alone and leave it as is as far as definition.

if that makes me an enemy of liberty in your eyes because i have an opinion and a stance on a moral issue i'm ok with that! judging by the attitude of many of your post i've been disliked by better

jake

I never said I dislike you or have a problem with you. I'm just saying you can't have your cake and eat it too. You usually seem to be much stronger on the "personal liberty" bandwagon than I am, that's why I'm confused at the two.

Just because something is a "moral issue" to you does not mean it is to everyone.

Also, the backhanded character attacks towards someone you don't know don't really help your cause.

 

[strahd71]

however, don't EVER come back and try to harp on "individual liberty" or "property rights" or anything of that ilk.

i guess its your insinuation that if you do not choose to accept every behavior that comes along that one has fallen off the "liberty band wagon" and if one disagrees with you then they no longer have any right to speak of any other topic concerning liberty.

in my opinion liberty is at risk if gay marriage is passed, religious liberty that is. before you snicker let me explain my self. they have already tried several times to shove various "hate speech" laws through making it a crime to speak against homosexuality. other countries already have passed these types of laws so this isnt "crazy" to think it could happen.

if the state sanctions gay marriage how long until the state tries to dictate to the church that it must also sanction and perform and promote gay marriage? sure no one is trying at the moment but do you seriously think it wont happen? if the state sanctions gay marriage then my fear and the fear of many is that it wont stop there but that it will become a crime to preach or teach against homosexuality. this is a concern of liberty too is it not?

i see your sig line says:
"The moral law should guide our personal actions, and individual liberty should guide our political decisions."

i think this is fine for most things, i'm not rick santorum i'm not out to ban everything i dont agree with. but for "ME" abortion, and gay marriage are non negotiables. abortion is a whole other thread, and trying to stick with INGO rules about religion i have attempted to outline some of my reasoning above.

like it or not it wont end with just "gay marriage" thats my political problem, my faith issue of course can not be addressed.

also in a previous post i did post some links too articles backing up my claims

jake

 

[GBuck]

i guess its your insinuation that if you do not choose to accept every behavior that comes along that one has fallen off the "liberty band wagon" and if one disagrees with you then they no longer have any right to speak of any other topic concerning liberty.

in my opinion liberty is at risk if gay marriage is passed, religious liberty that is. before you snicker let me explain my self. they have already tried several times to shove various "hate speech" laws through making it a crime to speak against homosexuality. other countries already have passed these types of laws so this isnt "crazy" to think it could happen.

if the state sanctions gay marriage how long until the state tries to dictate to the church that it must also sanction and perform and promote gay marriage? sure no one is trying at the moment but do you seriously think it wont happen? if the state sanctions gay marriage then my fear and the fear of many is that it wont stop there but that it will become a crime to preach or teach against homosexuality. this is a concern of liberty too is it not?

i see your sig line says:
"The moral law should guide our personal actions, and individual liberty should guide our political decisions."

i think this is fine for most things, i'm not rick santorum i'm not out to ban everything i dont agree with. but for "ME" abortion, and gay marriage are non negotiables. abortion is a whole other thread, and trying to stick with INGO rules about religion i have attempted to outline some of my reasoning above.

like it or not it wont end with just "gay marriage" thats my political problem, my faith issue of course can not be addressed.

also in a previous post i did post some links too articles backing up my claims

jake

My point is you shouldn't try to keep your liberty by prohibiting someone else's. Both should be equally laudable efforts to preserve. If you feel that you must fight for your liberty by infringing on another's, what's to stop someone from doing the same to you. We should all venture to protect everyone's liberty equally. My liberty is nothing if it comes at the cost of someone else's. In that case, I am not any better than those that I am "afraid" of.

 

[strahd71]

i would have quoted but on my phone now. I dont see how it is "stifling" anyone's liberty. They have the same rights as we do. The right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Isnt that equal?

Jake

 

[GBuck]

i would have quoted but on my phone now. I dont see how it is "stifling" anyone's liberty. They have the same rights as we do. The right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Isnt that equal?

Jake

They do have that right, however, that is not what makes them happy. Look at it this way, in Texas, an individual with a "Permit" (their word, not mine) can carry a handgun concealed, so if you are an advocate of CC, your argument would be, "Those open carry promoters don't need the right to carry openly, they have the same right to conceal as I do." But what if they aren't happy Concealing? What if they want the ability to choose their method of Carry? It's the same line of thinking.

You have the right to be happy as long as it does not effect someone else in a negative manner. Does it cause you harm if John wants to marry Steve?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

(Except those that are less equal, right? )

 

[strahd71]

Doesnt liberty give you the right to choose "no" we like it just like it is?

Jake

 

[GBuck]

Doesnt liberty give you the right to choose "no" we like it just like it is?

Jake

It gives you the right to not marry a dude, it does not give you the power to tell someone else they can't.

"WE" is a subjective term. Are you talking about the evangelical right? Are you talking about the whole country? What about just those that are left handed?

 

[strahd71]

Sorry i wasnt clear distracted with kids.

"We" i was thinking of the NC ammendment.

Jake

 

[GBuck]

Sorry i wasnt clear distracted with kids.

"We" i was thinking of the NC ammendment.

Jake

The NC Amendment is a glaring example of why the founding fathers set this country up as a Republic, and not a democracy. Rule of all by the masses is NOT liberty.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What should Romney/Republicans do about gay marriage?

Have Barney Frank over for a 'slumber party' and prove they are not 'prejudiced'?

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Well I have thought about the original question from the thread,

"What should Romney/Republicans do about gay marriage?"

I for one think they should do it. They should be who they are and stop living a lie. What they do in their personal lives is their own business and they dont need my approval. I would have more respect for them if they just owned it already.

 

[strahd71]

What should Romney/Republicans do about gay marriage?

Have Barney Frank over for a 'slumber party' and prove they are not 'prejudiced'?

God forbid something would happen to him even by accident...... remember the romney hair thread.

And no i'm not condoning doing anything to gays...... just sayin that thread was a mess too

Jake

 

[rambone]

Romney's Gay Rights Timeline

This is great. Mitt Romney goes from issuing his own gay pride flyers, to insisting that states should not be able to make up their own laws regarding marriage.






A Mitt Romney Gay Rights Timeline

 

[buckwacker]

This is great. Mitt Romney goes from issuing his own gay pride flyers, to insisting that states should not be able to make up their own laws regarding marriage.






A Mitt Romney Gay Rights Timeline

Etch-A-Scetch!