Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[RightThinking]

All this fuss over a title. Holy smokes! Can't we get on with something more important?

I happen to believe this is extremely important. If you don't, move on to another thread. Nobody said you had to be here - just like nobody said SW had to marry a woman - that was her choice but she's not willing to live with the consequences of her decisions (typical liberal).

Indeed. Being a libertarian though, I don't need the government telling me I'm married, God knows full well what I am, and what homosexuals aren't. This title of marriage is issued by the government, my pastor is the guy ordained by God to join me with the woman I love. I mean it when I say it isn't as important people are led to believe.

I am opposed to gay marriage if it means anything. Being a libertarian doesn't necessarily mean I abandon my morals.

We need the government to officially recognize marriages (only male-female, of course) for a number of reasons.

1. Protect children. There should be legal consequences for abandoning children.

2. Tax benefits. By having reduced taxes and the like, this is an official recognition and support of marriage and children.

3. It is one thing for some politicians to simply propound whatever they think the people want to hear, but it is a statement of principle that we, as a nation, support the institution of marriage.

4. People outside of any church or other institution can be legally recognized as being marriage.

 

[RightThinking]

Question about this NEW concept of marriage.

Before, the general idea was to create new life, but now the radicals want it altered to mean the official recognition of sexual love. Not that this was not part of it before, but this is the new basis to be recognized: Two people of the same sex want to get married and commit to a permanent life together. Apparently to limit their sexual activities between the two of them (even though about 50% of male same-sex partners have agreed to allow sex outside of the relationship).

In other words, homosexuals are saying that "this is what I am and I want to benefits of marriage and the recognition."

Well, what about this?

Johnny meets Tommy and they fall in love. They get married in the never-never land of Vermont. But wait! Johnny is now realizing something about himself.... He also likes women. Hey, he is the "B" in that LGBT group (or the LGBTQ group, I get mixed up).

So, his nature is not really homosexual. It is not really heterosexual. It is BIsexual. So, he meets Mary and falls in love.....

Now what? The radicals have said that marriage should be the unifying, according to law, based on the person's proclivity, choice, or nature (or whatever), in "marriage."

But Johnny is neither hetero- nor homo- He is BI. So, to not let him marry Mary would be to DENY him "rights," of course.

But wait..... A couple of years later, Mary meets Sally and falls in love; she did not realize she was also bi. Now what?

 

[Seawytch]

Question about this NEW concept of marriage.

Before, the general idea was to create new life, but now the radicals want it altered to mean the official recognition of sexual love. Not that this was not part of it before, but this is the new basis to be recognized: Two people of the same sex want to get married and commit to a permanent life together. Apparently to limit their sexual activities between the two of them (even though about 50% of male same-sex partners have agreed to allow sex outside of the relationship).

In other words, homosexuals are saying that "this is what I am and I want to benefits of marriage and the recognition."

Well, what about this?

Johnny meets Tommy and they fall in love. They get married in the never-never land of Vermont. But wait! Johnny is now realizing something about himself.... He also likes women. Hey, he is the "B" in that LGBT group (or the LGBTQ group, I get mixed up).

So, his nature is not really homosexual. It is not really heterosexual. It is BIsexual. So, he meets Mary and falls in love.....

Now what? The radicals have said that marriage should be the unifying, according to law, based on the person's proclivity, choice, or nature (or whatever), in "marriage."

But Johnny is neither hetero- nor homo- He is BI. So, to not let him marry Mary would be to DENY him "rights," of course.

But wait..... A couple of years later, Mary meets Sally and falls in love; she did not realize she was also bi. Now what?

He can divorce Johnny and marry Mary...or he can do like Republican Congressmen and marry Mary while fucking Johnny.

 

[Seawytch]

We need the government to officially recognize marriages (only male-female, of course) for a number of reasons.

1. Protect children. There should be legal consequences for abandoning children.

2. Tax benefits. By having reduced taxes and the like, this is an official recognition and support of marriage and children.

3. It is one thing for some politicians to simply propound whatever they think the people want to hear, but it is a statement of principle that we, as a nation, support the institution of marriage.

4. People outside of any church or other institution can be legally recognized as being marriage.

How does my marriage have any effect on any of that?

 

[RightThinking]

We need the government to officially recognize marriages (only male-female, of course) for a number of reasons.

1. Protect children. There should be legal consequences for abandoning children.

2. Tax benefits. By having reduced taxes and the like, this is an official recognition and support of marriage and children.

3. It is one thing for some politicians to simply propound whatever they think the people want to hear, but it is a statement of principle that we, as a nation, support the institution of marriage.

4. People outside of any church or other institution can be legally recognized as being marriage.

How does my marriage have any effect on any of that?

My response was to someone else. That response has nothing to do with same-sex "marriage" per se, because that is not really marriage. I was just referring to real marriage. Please note the context.

Thanks.

 

[kaz]

We don't have the same rights and that has been pointed out time and again. Because of the unconstitutional DOMA, my legal marriage is not treated the same as yours.

Governments murder, oppress and persecute their citizens across the globe and you can't live life because government will leave you alone because it doesn't give a rats ass who you sleep with, but it won't give you "perks" for having sex with a woman.

Do you want some whine with your cheese?

 

[Seawytch]

We don't have the same rights and that has been pointed out time and again. Because of the unconstitutional DOMA, my legal marriage is not treated the same as yours.

Governments murder, oppress and persecute their citizens across the globe and you can't live life because government will leave you alone because it doesn't give a rats ass who you sleep with, but it won't give you "perks" for having sex with a woman.

Do you want some whine with your cheese?

You get the perks for being legally married not for having sex. Not only am I denied the perks, I get penalized with more taxes because my marriage isn't treated the same as yours (that you don't even want).

That's okay with you?

 

[kaz]

We don't have the same rights and that has been pointed out time and again. Because of the unconstitutional DOMA, my legal marriage is not treated the same as yours.

Governments murder, oppress and persecute their citizens across the globe and you can't live life because government will leave you alone because it doesn't give a rats ass who you sleep with, but it won't give you "perks" for having sex with a woman.

Do you want some whine with your cheese?

You get the perks for being legally married not for having sex. Not only am I denied the perks, I get penalized with more taxes because my marriage isn't treated the same as yours (that you don't even want).

That's okay with you?

OK, now that one cracks me up. You are saying that you pay more because of a tax system that you support and I oppose ... and you're asking me if I'm OK with that. Seriously, you're not playing with a full deck. Here's a hint, I'm a libertarian. You have to argue things with me that a libertarian thinks, not that a liberal thinks. LMAO

 

[Seawytch]

Governments murder, oppress and persecute their citizens across the globe and you can't live life because government will leave you alone because it doesn't give a rats ass who you sleep with, but it won't give you "perks" for having sex with a woman.

Do you want some whine with your cheese?

You get the perks for being legally married not for having sex. Not only am I denied the perks, I get penalized with more taxes because my marriage isn't treated the same as yours (that you don't even want).

That's okay with you?

OK, now that one cracks me up. You are saying that you pay more because of a tax system that you support and I oppose ... and you're asking me if I'm OK with that. Seriously, you're not playing with a full deck. Here's a hint, I'm a libertarian. You have to argue things with me that a libertarian thinks, not that a liberal thinks. LMAO

I don't support a tax system that penalizes me for the gender of my spouse. You obviously do.

 

[kaz]

You get the perks for being legally married not for having sex. Not only am I denied the perks, I get penalized with more taxes because my marriage isn't treated the same as yours (that you don't even want).

That's okay with you?

OK, now that one cracks me up. You are saying that you pay more because of a tax system that you support and I oppose ... and you're asking me if I'm OK with that. Seriously, you're not playing with a full deck. Here's a hint, I'm a libertarian. You have to argue things with me that a libertarian thinks, not that a liberal thinks. LMAO

I don't support a tax system that penalizes me for the gender of my spouse. You obviously do.

I always like snarky liberal comments that miss the point of the conversation. They really make you think.

 

[RightThinking]

Question about this NEW concept of marriage.

Before, the general idea was to create new life, but now the radicals want it altered to mean the official recognition of sexual love. Not that this was not part of it before, but this is the new basis to be recognized: Two people of the same sex want to get married and commit to a permanent life together. Apparently to limit their sexual activities between the two of them (even though about 50% of male same-sex partners have agreed to allow sex outside of the relationship).

In other words, homosexuals are saying that "this is what I am and I want to benefits of marriage and the recognition."

Well, what about this?

Johnny meets Tommy and they fall in love. They get married in the never-never land of Vermont. But wait! Johnny is now realizing something about himself.... He also likes women. Hey, he is the "B" in that LGBT group (or the LGBTQ group, I get mixed up).

So, his nature is not really homosexual. It is not really heterosexual. It is BIsexual. So, he meets Mary and falls in love.....

Now what? The radicals have said that marriage should be the unifying, according to law, based on the person's proclivity, choice, or nature (or whatever), in "marriage."

But Johnny is neither hetero- nor homo- He is BI. So, to not let him marry Mary would be to DENY him "rights," of course.

But wait..... A couple of years later, Mary meets Sally and falls in love; she did not realize she was also bi. Now what?

He can divorce Johnny and marry Mary...or he can do like Republican Congressmen and marry Mary while fucking Johnny.

I did not think you could give me an answer. Ideologues and radicals rarely can.

 

[P@triot]

If you bold within all bolded text, that which you wanted to emphasize is obscured. (I'm a helper)

30 states have constitutional amendments prohibiting marriage equality (many even prohibiting civil unions)


9 states allow civil unions and 12, full, legal marriage.

Granting those marriages the same legal status under Federal Law is not going to change the laws in your state. If you state turns down Medicare expansion, my state does not have to as well.

The Federal Government should be treating all of these legal marriages equally, regardless of how another state feels.

The federal government represents all states - and most states do not recognize gay marriage.

By the way - when I put "not" in bold - it was the ONLY thing in bold in that entire post. How did you not understand that?

You just made my point. The Federal Government represents ALL states. It can't discriminate against mine because yours thinks I'm icky.

You bolded the whole post, obscuring the bolded "not". I fixed it for you. You're welcome.

Um, actually, you made my point for me. The federal government represents all states - and if the overwhelming majority of states do NOT recognize gay marriage (as is the case), the federal government has no right to trample over those states because you think the minority should rule in America.

 

[P@triot]

Question about this NEW concept of marriage.

Before, the general idea was to create new life, but now the radicals want it altered to mean the official recognition of sexual love. Not that this was not part of it before, but this is the new basis to be recognized: Two people of the same sex want to get married and commit to a permanent life together. Apparently to limit their sexual activities between the two of them (even though about 50% of male same-sex partners have agreed to allow sex outside of the relationship).

In other words, homosexuals are saying that "this is what I am and I want to benefits of marriage and the recognition."

Well, what about this?

Johnny meets Tommy and they fall in love. They get married in the never-never land of Vermont. But wait! Johnny is now realizing something about himself.... He also likes women. Hey, he is the "B" in that LGBT group (or the LGBTQ group, I get mixed up).

So, his nature is not really homosexual. It is not really heterosexual. It is BIsexual. So, he meets Mary and falls in love.....

Now what? The radicals have said that marriage should be the unifying, according to law, based on the person's proclivity, choice, or nature (or whatever), in "marriage."

But Johnny is neither hetero- nor homo- He is BI. So, to not let him marry Mary would be to DENY him "rights," of course.

But wait..... A couple of years later, Mary meets Sally and falls in love; she did not realize she was also bi. Now what?

 

[Seawytch]

Question about this NEW concept of marriage.

Before, the general idea was to create new life, but now the radicals want it altered to mean the official recognition of sexual love. Not that this was not part of it before, but this is the new basis to be recognized: Two people of the same sex want to get married and commit to a permanent life together. Apparently to limit their sexual activities between the two of them (even though about 50% of male same-sex partners have agreed to allow sex outside of the relationship).

In other words, homosexuals are saying that "this is what I am and I want to benefits of marriage and the recognition."

Well, what about this?

Johnny meets Tommy and they fall in love. They get married in the never-never land of Vermont. But wait! Johnny is now realizing something about himself.... He also likes women. Hey, he is the "B" in that LGBT group (or the LGBTQ group, I get mixed up).

So, his nature is not really homosexual. It is not really heterosexual. It is BIsexual. So, he meets Mary and falls in love.....

Now what? The radicals have said that marriage should be the unifying, according to law, based on the person's proclivity, choice, or nature (or whatever), in "marriage."

But Johnny is neither hetero- nor homo- He is BI. So, to not let him marry Mary would be to DENY him "rights," of course.

But wait..... A couple of years later, Mary meets Sally and falls in love; she did not realize she was also bi. Now what?

He can divorce Johnny and marry Mary...or he can do like Republican Congressmen and marry Mary while fucking Johnny.

I did not think you could give me an answer. Ideologues and radicals rarely can.

I gave you the only answer there is. It's not like this doesn't happen now. Do you have any idea how many gay people tried to play it straight, fell in love with someone of their gender and left their souses?

Utah has the highest percentage of same sex couples raising children for just this reason.

You can only be legally married to one person at a time. If you fall in love with someone else, you divorce your current spouse. Just ask Newt...he's done it a few times.

 

[Seawytch]

The federal government represents all states - and most states do not recognize gay marriage.

By the way - when I put "not" in bold - it was the ONLY thing in bold in that entire post. How did you not understand that?

You just made my point. The Federal Government represents ALL states. It can't discriminate against mine because yours thinks I'm icky.

You bolded the whole post, obscuring the bolded "not". I fixed it for you. You're welcome.

Um, actually, you made my point for me. The federal government represents all states - and if the overwhelming majority of states do NOT recognize gay marriage (as is the case), the federal government has no right to trample over those states because you think the minority should rule in America.

No Puppy, that's not how it works. Your state is still free to discriminate, the Federal Government must apply its laws equally, period.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In other words, you know I'm right and you have no response?

The federal government represents ALL states. And the overwhelming majority do NOT recognize gay marriage. It's an inconvenient fact which has you pissed off right now because it's the truth.

No Puppy...I'm pointing out, quite rightfully, that you seem to have no concept of what discrimination is. You seem to think that if enough people think gays are icky, that should trump the individual rights of gays and lesbians.

Apparently you've never heard the term "tyranny of the majority".

This country has countless checks & balances to prevent tyranny. One of the biggest to prevent "tyranny of the majority" is that we are not a democracy - we are a republic. And this republic has overwhelmingly decided that we will not accept gay marriage.

That’s unsurprisingly ignorant.

Our Constitutional Republic ensures that citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly. You and other conservatives are evidence of that.

The majority does not determine who will or will not have his rights, the majority is not authorized to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

 

[P@triot]

Question about this NEW concept of marriage.

Before, the general idea was to create new life, but now the radicals want it altered to mean the official recognition of sexual love. Not that this was not part of it before, but this is the new basis to be recognized: Two people of the same sex want to get married and commit to a permanent life together. Apparently to limit their sexual activities between the two of them (even though about 50% of male same-sex partners have agreed to allow sex outside of the relationship).

In other words, homosexuals are saying that "this is what I am and I want to benefits of marriage and the recognition."

Well, what about this?

Johnny meets Tommy and they fall in love. They get married in the never-never land of Vermont. But wait! Johnny is now realizing something about himself.... He also likes women. Hey, he is the "B" in that LGBT group (or the LGBTQ group, I get mixed up).

So, his nature is not really homosexual. It is not really heterosexual. It is BIsexual. So, he meets Mary and falls in love.....

Now what? The radicals have said that marriage should be the unifying, according to law, based on the person's proclivity, choice, or nature (or whatever), in "marriage."

But Johnny is neither hetero- nor homo- He is BI. So, to not let him marry Mary would be to DENY him "rights," of course.

But wait..... A couple of years later, Mary meets Sally and falls in love; she did not realize she was also bi. Now what?

This is one of many instances where her irrational ideology gets exposed for its hypocrisy (I've done this many times to her as well).

As I said previously - who is she to discriminate against someone who loves their dog or goat? Yet that's exactly what she does and her best "rationale" is that a dog or goat "can't enter into a contract". Uh, so? You're still discriminating against that person. The animal is not harmed in any capacity from "entering into a contract" - so what's the harm?

It's just that the heterophobe here thinks that is "icky". In short, like all libtards, in her mind it's ok for her to discriminate against others, but everyone else better give her exactly what she wants when she wants it or they are a "biggot".

 

[P@triot]

No Puppy...I'm pointing out, quite rightfully, that you seem to have no concept of what discrimination is. You seem to think that if enough people think gays are icky, that should trump the individual rights of gays and lesbians.

Apparently you've never heard the term "tyranny of the majority".

This country has countless checks & balances to prevent tyranny. One of the biggest to prevent "tyranny of the majority" is that we are not a democracy - we are a republic. And this republic has overwhelmingly decided that we will not accept gay marriage.

That’s unsurprisingly ignorant.

Our Constitutional Republic ensures that citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly. You and other conservatives are evidence of that.

The majority does not determine who will or will not have his rights, the majority is not authorized to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

This coming from the libtard who says that guns can be banned because "case law" says so...

This is NOT a 14th Amendment issue. She has EQUAL rights you buffoon. She can marry a man any time she wants and enjoy all the benefits that come with that marriage. She is asking for something special - and the American people have overwhelmingly said NO. End of story. You lose (as always). But hey, thanks for playing!

 

[Seawytch]

OK, now that one cracks me up. You are saying that you pay more because of a tax system that you support and I oppose ... and you're asking me if I'm OK with that. Seriously, you're not playing with a full deck. Here's a hint, I'm a libertarian. You have to argue things with me that a libertarian thinks, not that a liberal thinks. LMAO

I don't support a tax system that penalizes me for the gender of my spouse. You obviously do.

I always like snarky liberal comments that miss the point of the conversation. They really make you think.

I appealed to your libertarian ideals. I'm taxed more (to the tune of over $100 a month) simply for being gay. Does that sit well with your libertarian ideals? I'm not getting taxed more because I make more money or use more of the commons. I'm taxed more because my spouse and I are both women.

It's a real simple question. Should the Federal government treat my legal marriage just like yours?

 

[Seawytch]

Question about this NEW concept of marriage.

Before, the general idea was to create new life, but now the radicals want it altered to mean the official recognition of sexual love. Not that this was not part of it before, but this is the new basis to be recognized: Two people of the same sex want to get married and commit to a permanent life together. Apparently to limit their sexual activities between the two of them (even though about 50% of male same-sex partners have agreed to allow sex outside of the relationship).

In other words, homosexuals are saying that "this is what I am and I want to benefits of marriage and the recognition."

Well, what about this?

Johnny meets Tommy and they fall in love. They get married in the never-never land of Vermont. But wait! Johnny is now realizing something about himself.... He also likes women. Hey, he is the "B" in that LGBT group (or the LGBTQ group, I get mixed up).

So, his nature is not really homosexual. It is not really heterosexual. It is BIsexual. So, he meets Mary and falls in love.....

Now what? The radicals have said that marriage should be the unifying, according to law, based on the person's proclivity, choice, or nature (or whatever), in "marriage."

But Johnny is neither hetero- nor homo- He is BI. So, to not let him marry Mary would be to DENY him "rights," of course.

But wait..... A couple of years later, Mary meets Sally and falls in love; she did not realize she was also bi. Now what?

This is one of many instances where her irrational ideology gets exposed for its hypocrisy (I've done this many times to her as well).

As I said previously - who is she to discriminate against someone who loves their dog or goat? Yet that's exactly what she does and her best "rationale" is that a dog or goat "can't enter into a contract". Uh, so? You're still discriminating against that person. The animal is not harmed in any capacity from "entering into a contract" - so what's the harm?

It's just that the heterophobe here thinks that is "icky". In short, like all libtards, in her mind it's ok for her to discriminate against others, but everyone else better give her exactly what she wants when she wants it or they are a "biggot".

Oh Puppy, please do keep posting this sort of nonsense. Stupidity like that displayed in your post only helps move us closer to marriage equality. Keep up the good work!