Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In" - Page 15 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
jerep
Member since May 2011
403 posts

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

oh the abomination!


What a well thought out argument.

The statement had been made that religious people opposed to homo-sexual "marriage" were some how afraid that they would be forced to take part in such an arrangement, and it had been separately asked and implied elsewhere how a law legally defining marriage to include such arrangements would not affect people opposed to such arrangements. I provided a trivially obvious example of how the law would impose on the rights of people who oppose such "marriages".

Your opinion of the reasons why someone might oppose homo-sexual marriage, in the context of whether the law should protect such an arrangment at a cost to those who oppose it, is irrelevant.

You simply took a quote and separated it from that context and then added a comment designed to further confuse the issue, apparently because you couldn't dispute the statment in it's correct context.






Back to top
NaturalBeam
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
13113 posts
 Online 

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

They know in their minds and hearts what "marriage" should be and they are offended by the idea of something contrary to their beliefs being called the same thing.
I can see that; I know what it means to my wife and I, and it's very important and sacred to me. But I've never understood the concept of allowing someone else's marriage to define my own. Weird, huh?

With all the shitbags that get married these days, it would be pretty depressing to constantly worry about others so much.






Back to top
MaximumTiger
LSU Fan
The fiery pits of Hell
Member since Aug 2004
2669 posts

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

So people that think gay people should have the right to marry and be treated as equals are immoral?


Absolutely






Back to top
  Replies (0)
kingbob
LSU Fan
St. Amant, LA
Member since Nov 2010
18195 posts
 Online 

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


NaturalBeam, I don't think you fully understand what I am saying. I'm not speaking out against gay marriage. I am only pointing out the reality of the gay marriage debate. The primary hangup in most peoples' minds has nothing to do with constitutionality, it's semantics. Where I point out that government shouldn't be sanctioning marriage in any form, most don't see that option.

The reality is, if gay marriage was called something other than marriage, it would be legal basically everywhere.






Back to top
GumboPot
LSU Fan
Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2009
24398 posts

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

It's the opponents, who try to act like they don't care, but really do care, who show their hypocrisy.


How is it hypocritical to name two different things different names?






Back to top
GeauxTigerTM
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2006
11713 posts

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

The statement had been made that religious people opposed to homo-sexual "marriage" were some how afraid that they would be forced to take part in such an arrangement, and it had been separately asked and implied elsewhere how a law legally defining marriage to include such arrangements would not affect people opposed to such arrangements. I provided a trivially obvious example of how the law would impose on the rights of people who oppose such "marriages".


Why would religious people be giving up their children for adoption in the first place to even worry about this issue? Don't most adoptions result from an unplanned pregnancy of unwed mothers? Are you telling us that we ought to take into account the religious concerns (that gay couples should not adopt) of unwed, sexually active mothers?

It stands to reason that if their religious convictions were all that strong, they would not have been sexually active while being unmarried.






Back to top
Bear Is Dead
LSU Fan
Monroe
Member since Nov 2007
3607 posts

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

With all the shitbags that get married these days

If our govt defines marriage as "one man, one woman", then I would prefer if our govt cut off funding to nations where adolescent teens get forced into marriage, or where the norm is for one man to basically enslave multiple women into "marriage".






Back to top
  Replies (0)
jerep
Member since May 2011
403 posts

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

You've got it backwards. There are laws prohibiting gays from marrying. If those laws are repealed, more people can marry. Get it?


No, there are laws prohibiting homo-sexual, polygymist, etc, "marriages" from being recognized by the state. I have clearly said the solution is to eleminate state involvment in marriage. Two homo-sexual people are free to find someone to perform a ceremony and then they can claim to be married. I don't have to accept their "marriage", but neither do I beleive force should to be used to interfere with it. Nor should I be forced by the state to subsidize such an arrangement. Whether you like my relegious reasons is irrelavant. Similarly non-religious people should not be forced to subsidize what I accept as marriage.

Get it?

Or will you continue to intentionally disregard what has been stated repeatedly by myself and others, (some of whom probably don't argree with my relegious motiviations), in this thread?







Back to top
NaturalBeam
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
13113 posts
 Online 

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

NaturalBeam, I don't think you fully understand what I am saying. I'm not speaking out against gay marriage. I am only pointing out the reality of the gay marriage debate. The primary hangup in most peoples' minds has nothing to do with constitutionality, it's semantics. Where I point out that government shouldn't be sanctioning marriage in any form, most don't see that option.
I fully understand and I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, as much as we want gov't out of all marriage, it's still there. And the current SCOTUS cases are about gay marriage, not gov't intervention in marriage altogether.

So I agree with you, I just don't see the relevance in this debate.






Back to top
NaturalBeam
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
13113 posts
 Online 

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

How is it hypocritical to name two different things different names?
I thought you said they were the same thing with different names?






Back to top
  Replies (0)
NaturalBeam
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
13113 posts
 Online 

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

No, there are laws prohibiting homo-sexual, polygymist, etc, "marriages" from being recognized by the state. I have clearly said the solution is to eleminate state involvment in marriage. Two homo-sexual people are free to find someone to perform a ceremony and then they can claim to be married. I don't have to accept their "marriage", but neither do I beleive force should to be used to interfere with it. Nor should I be forced by the state to subsidize such an arrangement. Whether you like my relegious reasons is irrelavant. Similarly non-religious people should not be forced to subsidize what I accept as marriage.
I agree completely. Again though, since gov't is involved, I don't see the relevance.

I'm all for getting gov't out. But that's not what is before SCOTUS.

quote:

Or will you continue to intentionally disregard what has been stated repeatedly by myself and others, (some of whom probably don't argree with my relegious motiviations), in this thread?
I'm not ignoring anything. I've continued to recognize that marriage is a gov't institution (I agree it shouldn't be, but it is), and that so long as it is a gov't institution, using religion as a reason to disallow certain individuals is illogical. My point here continues to be ignored, and I believe I know why...



This post was edited on 3/26 at 4:14 pm


Back to top
  Replies (0)
jerep
Member since May 2011
403 posts

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


You have completely ignored the issue of government taking property (money) from people to provide "benefits", or forcing private employers to hire people they don't wish to hire, or provide "benefits" they don't wish to provide.

quote:

might I suggest not giving them up for adoption and raising them themselves if they are so concerned by whom their children are to be raised? Presumably these people putting kids up for adoption that have issues with gay marriage would be religious...why then are they having kids they need to put up for adoption?


I don't know what the percentages are, and for the purposes of this argument it doesn't matter, but, I suspect that most people who put children (especially new borns) up for adoption, do so because they hope the child will have a better life than they could have provided. This does not mean they don't care what happens to the child.

And again, the question was posed as to how laws requiring the recognition of homo-sexual marriage affect people opposed to such. I have provided several examples.






Back to top
kingbob
LSU Fan
St. Amant, LA
Member since Nov 2010
18195 posts
 Online 

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

So I agree with you, I just don't see the relevance in this debate.


The relevence in this debate is to start the conversation that government shouldn't be involved in marriage. If we, as a people, can start a groundswell and join in with the gay rights community, we can craft legislation that makes both sides happy, striking a compromise to end the gay marriage debate once and for all.

Gays get to get married, have community property, and adopt children.

Religious people get government out of their marriages and don't have to care about gay marriage because their church is no longer pressured to offer it.

Fiscal Conservatives get to ax the income tax along with dozens of others.

Neo-cons get to change the perception of the Republican Party by striking a compromise for homosexuals.

Liberals rejoice in the new tax that brings in more revenue and placates one of the members of their coalition. They also get to pat themselves on the back for supporting the movement that ended with gays getting married.

EVERYBODY CAN WIN, HAVE THEIR CAKE, AND EAT IT TOO!!!






Back to top
  Replies (0)
NaturalBeam
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
13113 posts
 Online 

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

You have completely ignored the issue of government taking property (money) from people to provide "benefits", or forcing private employers to hire people they don't wish to hire, or provide "benefits" they don't wish to provide.
Again, this sounds like a problem with marriage in general, not just gay marriage.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
jerep
Member since May 2011
403 posts

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

It stands to reason that if their religious convictions were all that strong, they would not have been sexually active while being unmarried.


Undoubtedly. But this does not change the fact that they may still have those convictions. Nor does this have anything to do with the original issue.

quote:

Are you telling us that we ought to take into account the religious concerns (that gay couples should not adopt) of unwed, sexually active mothers?


No, I have said no such thing. I have said that people who put their children up for adoption should be able to go to an agency which would not place the child with a homo-sexual couple if such an agency could be found. The government should not be able to prevent such a requirement.

And again, you have completely ignored the all of the other examples of how homo-sexual "marriage" laws would affect people who are opposed to such "marriages".






Back to top
GeauxTigerTM
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2006
11713 posts

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

You have completely ignored the issue of government taking property (money) from people to provide "benefits", or forcing private employers to hire people they don't wish to hire, or provide "benefits" they don't wish to provide.


I ignored it because I haven't argued in favor of that position. As someone who actually believes in more freedom rather than less, I don't like the idea of the government telling people who they can/cannot hire/fire, who private stores and clubs can/cannot admit, etc. It ought to be up to the individual owner if they want to admit whites only, or homosexuals only...and I as a private citizen can then decide which business I'd like to patronize.

That's a separate issue though from your concern about what your tax dollars go to subsidize...regardless of how badly you'd like to make it a religious one. Should Quakers or Janes be exempt from paying federal taxes because some of those dollars go towards war efforts? Of course not.

quote:

I don't know what the percentages are, and for the purposes of this argument it doesn't matter, but, I suspect that most people who put children (especially new borns) up for adoption, do so because they hope the child will have a better life than they could have provided. This does not mean they don't care what happens to the child.

And again, the question was posed as to how laws requiring the recognition of homo-sexual marriage affect people opposed to such. I have provided several examples.


In this case, you've strained yourself and in doing so provided a terrible example. Again...why should I care about the religious concerns of an unwed, sexually active mother when she clearly did not concern herself with them? Are there a plethora of religious married couples out there offering up kids for adoption for whom your example would actually be true...or is it mostly sexually active unwed girls?






Back to top
GeauxTigerTM
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2006
11713 posts

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

Undoubtedly. But this does not change the fact that they may still have those convictions.


Right...but it would show their convictions to be hollow...as they clearly do not take their religious convictions seriously. And since they do not, neither should I.

quote:

I have said that people who put their children up for adoption should be able to go to an agency which would not place the child with a homo-sexual couple if such an agency could be found. The government should not be able to prevent such a requirement.


With this, I don't disagree. As I stated in an earlier post, I'm for more freedoms, not less. Just as I believe that a private business owner ought to have the right to deny employment or services to people if they so choose, so too do I think birth parents ought to have the right you suggest. Then I, as a private citizen, can choose to patronize either from the bigoted a-hole who refuses to employ blacks and women or go to his competitor down the street who does not discriminate against them...and if I'm looking to adopt I can choose an agency that caters to the girl with concerns about gay couples (and not about getting knocked up while not being married) or their competitor. Three cheers for freedom!

quote:


And again, you have completely ignored the all of the other examples of how homo-sexual "marriage" laws would affect people who are opposed to such "marriages".


FWIW, if you continue to put quotes around marriage, I'll stop taking your seriously and I'd invite others to do the same. You look idiotic doing this.






Back to top
jerep
Member since May 2011
403 posts

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

In this case, you've strained yourself and in doing so provided a terrible example. Again...why should I care about the religious concerns of an unwed, sexually active mother when she clearly did not concern herself with them? Are there a plethora of religious married couples out there offering up kids for adoption for whom your example would actually be true...or is it mostly sexually active unwed girls?



You seem to have zeroed in on this whole unwed, sexually active mother thing because it has emotional appeal. Maybe not, but you have expanded and elaborated the circumstances of adoption in general to this specific case.

So, I'll make up my own. What about a devoutly religious husband and wife who died in a car wreck, who had no living relatives, and whose child survived. What about an unwed teen-age girl who is dirt poor, was raped, but is adamantly opposed to abortion who wanted to put the child up for adoption with the hope that it will have an normal life. She should be free to go to a private adoption agency which refuses to place children with homo-sexual couples.

One can always make up details that are irrelevant to the underlying point.

The underlying point is, that individuals should have the right to use an adoption agency which will act in accordance with their beliefs about what kind of enviornment the child will be raised in without government interference, not for the protection of the child, but for the entitlement of those who wish to adopt the child.



quote:

Should Quakers or Janes be exempt from paying federal taxes because some of those dollars go towards war efforts?


Yes. When the country was founded, a direct tax to be paid by individuals to the federal government was explicitly prohibited. Again, the underlying premise is that a government infringment on peoples rights should not be removed, but that it should be "fixed".






Back to top
  Replies (0)
jerep
Member since May 2011
403 posts

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


quote:

Right...but it would show their convictions to be hollow...as they clearly do not take their religious convictions seriously. And since they do not, neither should I.


You are making some rather simplisticly crude assumptions about the nature of people's religious convictions and imputing them to hypothetical people in a hypothetical situation you have created as a straw man. You have tried to turn the question from whether laws requiring people to accept homo-sexual "marriages" has an affect on people who aren't involved in such arrangements into a question about your judgement of the religious purity of girls who get "knocked up while not being married".

quote:

FWIW, if you continue to put quotes around marriage, I'll stop taking your seriously and I'd invite others to do the same. You look idiotic doing this.


I use the word marriage to mean something specific. When referring to something else which others wish to call marriage, then it is entirely appropriate for me to place quotes around the word to make clear that in that context I am using the word other than in its literal sense. Others who might agree might assume that the point is understood and that the quotes are unnecessary. Still others may disagree and simply not like to see the point made explicit.

As for whether you, or anyone wishes to take what I have said seriously, that is up to you and them. Your invitation not to, or mine asking them to do so would be an insult to the readers ability to form judgements on their own. The only thing that anyone reading any of this should consider is logic and consistency of the arguments themselves.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
udtiger
LSU Fan
Louisiana
Member since Nov 2006
25025 posts

re: Pro Natural (Anti-Gay) Marriage "Check-In"


I personally don't care. However, the individual states should be able to decide if they will allow (or recognize) them. Also, religious should not be forced to perform them even if legal.





Back to top


Back to top