Election Day 2009 Thread.......

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Which brings us to where we are now. Marriage is really just a legal contract between two parties. It has no mention of eternal love or any other mystical or spiritual elements. It is not much different than a legal contract you sign for the home you buy or a job offer you take.

Now you may define marriage differently based on your spiritual beliefs. That's fine and your church has every right to not marry people they don't want to on that basis. But that has nothing to do with legal marriage offered through the government. Not everyone lives their life based on the ever changing interpretation of some fairy tales written 2000 years ago.

Damn +1 again to Rainmaker, exactly my thoughts.

[path12]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This isn't the first time in my life I've been reminded that the greatest threats to this country remaining even remotely fit to live in, or even exist, come from within rather than without.

This. Though from a diametrically opposed viewpoint.

[Denial Of Freedom]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You're as anti-government as they come so I'm not sure why you would want the government to tell you how you should view marriage and how you should handle it.

This is why I can not stand conservatives and do not vote with them even though I align more with them. I hate how a great majority are such hypocrites and bigots. They preach for the government to get out of peoples lives and make individuals responsible. However, when it comes to things that make them uncomfortable, even though the item does no physical harm to them, they want the government to get involved. I honestly do not know how some people can be so closed minded that they think it is alright to prevent people from their unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we are going to leave it to the voters to decide who to take rights away from I don't know how slavery was ever abolished. I doubt very highly that the voters in the southern states would have ever voted to get rid of it. Thankfully common sense prevailed and the government has stepped in, as I'm sure it will in a few years on this issue, that some people are just to dumb and ignorant to understand that they were not born with the right to oppress others just because they don't agree with their lifestyle.

[Greyroofoo]

Personally I think the government should just keep its nose out of marriage/civil unions entirely.

That would end the debate so we can focus on more important issues like the next American Idol winner or if Schmidty's sister is hot or not.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Personally I think the government should just keep its nose out of marriage/civil unions entirely.

That would end the debate so we can focus on more important issues like the next American Idol winner or if Schmidty's sister is hot or not.

If they kept out of it, then that would be the best of everything, since then those that are married would no longer get tax breaks. But then what we would do about people who are married and can't take any legal action if their partner was to die.

This is why the government needs to stay involved.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Denial Of Freedom

This is why I can not stand conservatives and do not vote with them even though I align more with them. I hate how a great majority are such hypocrites and bigots. They preach for the government to get out of peoples lives and make individuals responsible. However, when it comes to things that make them uncomfortable, even though the item does no physical harm to them, they want the government to get involved.

So are liberals also hypocrites because they preach freedom from government intrusion on social/moral issues, but want government to be heavily involved in every other part of our lives?

It's not really about government/anti-government for most people. Most people just want government to regulate things they don't like (whether that be gays, or rich people, or liquor, or businesses), and stay out of things when they like the status quo.

[ISiddiqui]

Denial of Freedom may be a libertarian (as I got from his statement that he aligns more with conservatives... probably on idealized fiscal policy)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

It's not really about government/anti-government for most people. Most people just want government to regulate things they don't like ... and stay out of things when they like the status quo.

Nice, neat, accurate summation afaic.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

It's not really about government/anti-government for most people. Most people just want government to regulate things they don't like (whether that be gays, or rich people, or liquor, or businesses), and stay out of things when they like the status quo.

I would agree with that. I still think there is a heavy element of people who get off on telling other people how to live their life. Whether that's drugs, homosexuality, porn, smoking, etc. Some seem so upset with their own life that this stuff makes them feel good.

I would just like more honesty. If you're for taking rights away and such, don't be the ones holding signs about liberty and freedom at the next town hall.

[JPhillips]

Another "No Moderates Welcome" sign goes up. Jim Demint tells NRSC chairman Cornyn:

"He’s trying to find candidates who can win. I’m trying to find people who can help me change the Senate," said Jim DeMint of South Carolina, a leader of the conservative bloc. "To think we can grow the party by picking people who are more liberal and don’t share our core values doesn’t make any sense."

[Kodos]

I think the standard should be something like this: Any pair of people above the age of 18, regardless of sex, race, etc., can enter a civil union, and have the same legal rights and benefits conferred on them that any other couple has under our current legal understanding of "marriage". These rights would be covered by the government and would apply to all legal matters. Then, there could be a special form of civil unions called marriages, that would be conferred on top of the government granted civil union from the realm of religion. Marriage would have no legal significance or legal distinction from civil unions. It would just be like a nice topping on the civil union cupcake for those who wanted it.

Then hopefully there would be a progressive church out there that would allow gays to get "married" if they wanted to.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Then hopefully there would be a progressive church out there that would allow gays to get "married" if they wanted to.

They already exist. Gay people have been getting married in churches for awhile now in every state*. It's just that most states won't recognize them as marriages.


* - a bit of an assumption on my part (the "every state" part), but I know the practice of gay couples getting married in churches is pretty widespread.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think the standard should be something like this: Any pair of people above the age of 18, regardless of sex, race, etc., can enter a civil union, and have the same legal rights and benefits conferred on them that any other couple has under our current legal understanding of "marriage". These rights would be covered by the government and would apply to all legal matters. Then, there could be a special form of civil unions called marriages, that would be conferred on top of the government granted civil union from the realm of religion. Marriage would have no legal significance or legal distinction from civil unions. It would just be like a nice topping on the civil union cupcake for those who wanted it.

Then hopefully there would be a progressive church out there that would allow gays to get "married" if they wanted to.

this is what i'd like to see happen too. i just think the state shouldn't be involved in the recognition of something that his historically been a religious institution when it has now come to have legal ramifications that are every bit as significant. it's a slippery slope that has led to the problems that we are seeing today. the state should give everyone a "civil union" license that gives you all of those rights. they could give them out before religious ceremonies, after religious ceremonies, i don't care. then on top of that you can go and get married in a church before/after or whatever.

i don't see why it's a big deal at all. everybody who's so worried that gays getting married is going to destroy the institution of marriage or whatever would be much better off taking the time and energy they've put into being opposed to it into their own relationships to improve them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think the standard should be something like this: Any pair of people above the age of 18, regardless of sex, race, etc., can enter a civil union, and have the same legal rights and benefits conferred on them that any other couple has under our current legal understanding of "marriage". These rights would be covered by the government and would apply to all legal matters. Then, there could be a special form of civil unions called marriages, that would be conferred on top of the government granted civil union from the realm of religion. Marriage would have no legal significance or legal distinction from civil unions. It would just be like a nice topping on the civil union cupcake for those who wanted it.

Then hopefully there would be a progressive church out there that would allow gays to get "married" if they wanted to.

If it has no legal signifigance or distinction, isn't it just a gigantic waste of time and money? And that doesn't seem to keep the seperation of church and state.

[DaddyTorgo]

i think he meant that marriages would be conferred by the realm of religion not by the government.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

this is what i'd like to see happen too. i just think the state shouldn't be involved in the recognition of something that his historically been a religious institution when it has now come to have legal ramifications that are every bit as significant. it's a slippery slope that has led to the problems that we are seeing today. the state should give everyone a "civil union" license that gives you all of those rights. they could give them out before religious ceremonies, after religious ceremonies, i don't care. then on top of that you can go and get married in a church before/after or whatever.

i don't see why it's a big deal at all. everybody who's so worried that gays getting married is going to destroy the institution of marriage or whatever would be much better off taking the time and energy they've put into being opposed to it into their own relationships to improve them.

The funny thing is that marriage hasn't historically been a religious institution. In fact, much of human history it has not had any religious connection. It was really only in the last few hundred years when Churches tried to gain more power and influence did they tie themselves to it.

[JPhillips]

HAHAHA!

Everybody knows Jesus invented marriage.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i don't see why it's a big deal at all. everybody who's so worried that gays getting married is going to destroy the institution of marriage or whatever would be much better off taking the time and energy they've put into being opposed to it into their own relationships to improve them.

Certainly I think divorce and infidelity are bigger risks to the institution of marriage than the recognizing of gay marriage. I liked the guy in California who's waging a "make divorce illegal" campaign.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

HAHAHA!

Everybody knows Jesus invented marriage.

To Mary Magdalene right