Gender: male Member Since: July 14, 2006 Last Signed In: March 15, 2008 Profile Views: 26807 Blog Views: 13713 Gay Marriage Based On Religious Freedom Must Be Consistent A "Christian Nation" -- Impossible Even By Religious Right's Criteria The Only Gay Marriage Argument You'll Ever Need My Thoughts on the In God We Trust Scare A Spooky (And True) Story of Precognition World's 3rd Richest Man Says Taxes on the Rich Are Too Low New Right's War on the Constitution: The Under-Reported Truth Religious Right Group's Belief in Religious Freedom Does Not Extend to Others Take The Time To Fight Phishing Creationist Betrays True Motives (Again) July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 News, views, and professional iconoclasm from the green side of libertarianism. About the graphic: Created by Yours Truly using Ray Dream Studio. - Take The Time To Fight Phishing
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
A Different Approach to Gay Rights & Marriage
I have thought about how I would approach gay marriage and other social issues if I were to run as an actual political candidate, especially in light of my desire to end the caustic divisions that vex our society today. . Might work. .
103 comments from 15 users
posted by
TomW
on Oct 13, 2006 at 04:57 PM
I feel like we need to let the churches decide who to marry. The government has no business deciding that. The government should provide for civil unions for any two people considered able to sign a contract. If they also want to get married, that's fine. If they want to get married and not have a civil contract, that's fine too.
posted by
tkozy
on Oct 13, 2006 at 05:07 PM
I don’t accept a couples right to receive the social or economic benefits of marriage. From the mere curbside declaration. We are a couple.. There must be some formality.. Much more than sharing a barstool.. I don’t think that marriage within a church is a concern for government. Period.. Civil ceremonies. A formal declaration… Legal and enforceable by a court of law.. For both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Should be required for the benefits offered by the corporation. And government.. posted by
allRED
on Oct 13, 2006 at 06:30 PM
And you people want to know why we are divided as a country. Marriage=man/women.I dont care who people live with and what they do in their bedrooms, but not marriage. Sex education, keep it out of schools. If you need to teach sex, do it in college. Abortion was voted on 35 so years ago by liberal judges we had our rights taken away then and now Bush is electing judges to bring back anti abortion judges, yes I know you feel your rights are being destroyed, guess what? thats the way we felt 35+ years ago. When this election is over, hopefully we will elect more Conservative judges and get rid of the 9th circuit court. I dont care how polite you try to premote your wishes it wont work. Ron. posted by
tkozy
on Oct 13, 2006 at 07:07 PM
All I KNOW why we are divided in this country.. It has to do with:
The war in Iraq.. The attempted dismantling of social security.. The indecent mingling of Church and State.. The tax cuts for the wealthy. The stagnation of wages.. Adjusted for inflation.. The lowest in 30 years.. The increasing number of uninsured…. The failed foreign policy that has made our government the laughing stock of the world. And the attempt to hide these deficiencies behind the relationship of two same sex couples and sex education in High school.... posted by
tonyh
on Oct 13, 2006 at 07:13 PM
Damn, I got one of those tax cuts. Does that mean I'm wealthy? That's GREAT!I LOVE being wealthy. I've never BEEN wealthy before...................... posted by
allRED
on Oct 13, 2006 at 07:15 PM
I'm going to say some very hash things. Liberals have been criticizing the moral majority since Bush took office.Not many here or else where will come out and tell it like it should be told, liberals are like little demons, you try to sugar coat your perverted ways, over and over, you test a spot to see how far you can dig in, a continuance digging, when you fell you go out and get help, alittle abortion devil, a gay devil, a womens right devil, a tree hugging devil, a equal rights devil that teaches all should have the same amount of money or wealth, a dont fight and protect your gun rights devil, a devil that you believe, if only we would sit down and talk the world would be @ peace. When you get enough, alittle here and there after you have collected enough little demons you come with one voice, LIBERALISM. All I heard from your side, we have no voice, the air ways are full Rushs, Salvages, Becks, Hannitys, we need equal time too. You have air America, cnn, msnbc, abc, cbs, pbs and guess what? nobody wants to hear their lies. I have to go, I dont care what crap you throw @ me, but we will never again be one country till these demons are expelled. Ron. posted by
tkozy
on Oct 13, 2006 at 07:28 PM
Tony I have posted the definition of Straw man a bunch of times. Didn’t you read it? Let’s review what I actually said.. Are you back yet? Okay.. If you got a tax cut.. That does not necessarily mean you are wealthy.. Most working people with a wage over 45 thousand dollars got some sort of tax cut.. Not much . But a little.. A household income of 45 thousand is about average for Bakersfield. But not so, for Smaller towns in the valley and most states in the mid west…. In other words.. The RED states.. Actually benefited less From Bush’s tax cuts than blue states.. Funny how that happens. It just isn’t too funny to the loyal Bush voters in the Red states.. Now if you got one of the tax cuts for the Wealthy, (over 200 thousand dollars / year is approaching wealthy depending on where you live).. Then yes.. You got one of the tax cuts for the wealthy. In fact. Most of today’s Federal deficit. Can be explained by the tax reduction given to you and your friends.. posted by
tkozy
on Oct 13, 2006 at 07:33 PM
All.. You’re a day late and a dollar short in the ill tempered, harsh department..
From:
Here's an experiment for everyone. See if you can tell which of the From: http://groups.google.co.uk/...http://groups.google.co.uk/... posted by
TomW
on Oct 13, 2006 at 07:53 PM
Ron, you've got a few incorrect ideas about what liberalism is. I don't want to go on a tirade, so I'll just say that if there's any one thing you want to talk about, I'm happy to. But you talk about liberals as devils, which makes me believe you're more interested in feeling right than being right. If that's the case, best of luck with that.
posted by
allRED
on Oct 13, 2006 at 07:56 PM
tkozy: I have dealt with you before, You deleted one of my post, I deleted one person on my post and ask him/her to use a name and of course they wouldnt, so I deleted it.I think you modified to keep the answers hidden as you said and I have no trouble with that. The people you quote could've said those things and I have no problem with that, What you didnt say, was who quoted what, Please let me know who said what and then we can discuss their quotes. Many of those I have no problem with, after I know who quoted them. Ron. posted by
allRED
on Oct 13, 2006 at 08:16 PM
Tom I believe you hit the nail on the head, feeling or believeing whats right. One subject, as you ask, Gays, marriage or not? I know where to but my penis and that belongs only to my wife, not a man and it doesnt belong to another women, I dont like putting this on the net, (childern) so, you see how I stand. Now you and lets see, if we disagree or not. Ron. posted by
tkozy
on Oct 13, 2006 at 08:28 PM
All You are beginning to ramble.. You may need to lay off the Kool-aid.. I have never deleted anyone’s post.. I haven’t been on this board long enough to realize I could delete anyone’s post other than my own Period.. posted by
TomW
on Oct 13, 2006 at 08:53 PM
We agree. You should be able to do whatever you want and what is right for you. If some church out there wants to marry gay people, I can't see myself standing between a gay couple and the church that wants to marry them. I'd never say that a church should marry someone. I'd never ask you to think it's right. But I'm not the one who should decide what churches should be doing.
posted by
allRED
on Oct 13, 2006 at 09:17 PM
Tom I dont see us agreeing: I dont believe we should be able to do whatever: But @ least we can see why, I'm on this side and you on the other. This is a major gap, between the two parties, not only a gap but a wide ravine.How about Abortion? I'm trying one subject @ a time. Most lib's dont believe in the death penalty and yet abortion (killing of a human) is alouded. Leting a 13/15 or any under age girl to abort without even the parents ok, is that right? Ron. posted by
allRED
on Oct 13, 2006 at 09:20 PM
tkzoy: are you going to put those quotes, with names?Ron. later guys, bed time big day tomorrow, the way this blog has been treating me, half the time I leave it doesnt allow me to post for a couple of days. posted by
tkozy
on Oct 13, 2006 at 10:38 PM
All, you don’t know? Aren’t you the morality master? 1. Bob Werner 2. Randall Terry 3. Falwell 4. Falwell 5. Robertson 6. Robertson 7. Falwell 8. Falwell 9. Charles Stanly 10. Rich Anguin 11. Gary Potter 12. Gary North 13. Kent Hovind 14. J. Robinson 15. Chuck Spingola 16. Dean Wycoff 17. Randall Terry
Presidential candidate Pat Robertson …. told his supporters that his presidential bid was a direct command from God: "I heard the Lord saying, 'I have something else for you to do. I want you to run for President of the United States'". (Washington Post, Feb 15, 1988, cited in Boston, 1996, p. 39) posted by
TomW
on Oct 13, 2006 at 11:16 PM
Hey Ron, it's not really a gap between the parties. It's a gap between philosophies. There are people in both parties who have each of our beliefs. I mean, we'll never stop people from being gay. I also don;t think we should make laws that prevent churches from performing sacrements however they see fit.As for abortion (though I notice you slipped in the death penalty there too:) ), you're right about allowing it, though I just can't get behind a first trimester abortion as murder. We could talk about where the line might be, but women have control of their own bodies. I don't like the spectacle of trying women for self induced abortions. Even if we don't agree on that, we can look at the best ways to minimize the number of abortions which I think is something we both can agree on. Education, birth control and Plan B are the way to go. posted by
ki6amd
on Oct 14, 2006 at 02:24 AM
I don't even see the argument here. Aren't I supposed to be the nutty right-wing wacko? Maybe next time. I've said it before but I guess I gotta say it again... THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE ARGUMENT WENT OUT THE WINDOW WHEN PEOPLE IN HOLLYWOOD STARTED GETTING MARRIED. (SEE: BRITTANY SPEARS, BRAD PITT, etc., etc.) posted by
linfestyp
on Oct 14, 2006 at 05:41 AM
One problem is that there are churches out there that would perform same sex marriages if they were allowed to by the state. Aren't their rights being taken away by the state by not allowing this? Oh, that's right. These are obviously Churches of Satan. At least I'm sure that's what Jerry Falwell and his ilk believe, or at least who would have you believe.
posted by
NancyII
on Oct 14, 2006 at 07:10 AM
Is it illegal for ministers to perform the ceremony? Or is it that it won't be legal? I remember years back a preacer in FL was performing marriages without licenses to senior couples who would lose SS money if they married legally. The people hated the idea of "living in sin" and as long as the ceremony was perfomed in the eyes of God they were ok with it.I don't remember if it was an illegal act on the part of the pastor or not. In CA at least, they can file as domestic partners and keep all benefits as well as added benefits such as ins. It's not restircted to the elderly or gays either. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Oct 14, 2006 at 09:54 AM
Linfestyp, you are right. That is the infallible Constitutional case for gay marriage:. It's up to the churches to decide what is sacred, and if the government selectively withholds underwriting their marriages based on some "official" concept of sanctity, then that government is violating the Constitution on the basis of the First and 14th Amendments. . There is no valid counterargument in existence -- unless we're willing to selectively ignore the Constitution on an arbitrary basis. . I'm not. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Oct 14, 2006 at 10:02 AM
Ron / AllRED, I disagree that this is or should be the difference between the two major political parties.. Some people are certainly trying to make it the difference -- trying to turn the GOP into the freedom-hating party and labeling all freedom-lovers as "liberals." I haven't changed my registration yet (still registered Republican), but I've pretty much given up on trying to save the GOP from within. (If I see a glimmer of hope for a push-back of freedom-lovers in the GOP, I'll reconsider.) . I ask you, though: Where did Jesus make gay marriage or abortion an issue? _______________ Where did Jesus make helping the needy an issue? ___________________ . One of your lists of answers to these questions will be empty, and the other will be quite long. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Oct 14, 2006 at 10:06 AM
KI6AMD, good point. I'd go farther to say that marriage was never sacred, except for a consistent minority of cases. People would always ask, "how can you stand being together all the time?" . My answer was, "if you can't stand being together, you shouldn't get married."
posted by
randomfactor
on Oct 14, 2006 at 10:59 AM
I've got to agree with Ron on this one. Marriage=Man/women. It's even Biblically supported. Jacob and Leah and Rachel, Solomon and his wives and concubines, David and someone else's wife... . As for the benefits, if married man/women groups want to deny the legal benefits of marriage to gays, they should be prepared to give up those same benefits. . Marriage for all or marriage for none. I'll even let the bigots pick which. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Oct 14, 2006 at 11:04 AM
Another entry on my DVD of old classroom films was a filmstrip that taught about fundamental human rights.. One of them was, plainly written, "the right to marry whom you want." . The date? 1948. . True about the Bible, too. Adultery was, in fact, not seen as an act of "unfaithfulness," but an act of trespassing. posted by
TomW
on Oct 14, 2006 at 12:54 PM
I think what I'm saying is that there are two very different definitions of marriage. What is done by the government is civil unions. It's a set of legal contracts, joint property filings etc. What is performed in church is a "holy union". I don't see how a) the government can base eligibility for contract on gender or b) how they can prevent churches from or compel them into performing any marriage they choose.
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 14, 2006 at 02:07 PM
Interesting way to tackle a huge wedge issue Hardliner. I think its a very good attempt to minimalize a divisive issue that gets people foaming at the mouth on both sides.
posted by
mattloch
on Oct 14, 2006 at 10:44 PM
Tom hits the nail on the head there. This is a religious action that is given legitimacy by our government. Ron, if you believe that the government can confer legitimacy to actions under certain conditions and not others, what is to prevent the government from not recognizing the same actions, only choosing to recognize marriages (of a man and a woman) performed only by Episcopalian churches? Or only Jewish synagogs? Or by the Church of the Subgenius? Marrying Tom's point with RF's option, Which would you have? The government being able to tell you that your own marriage is no longer considered legitamate unless you were married by Elvis in Las Vegas, or that any marriage between any two people performed by any church is considered good enough for the government? You can not like it all you want, but you cannot decide other people's legally protected rights based on your own individually decided morality. As soon as you can do that, anybody can do that, including me. Do you want me deciding if you can stay married? . PS: I'm not sure how the right to an abortion is taking away your rights, Ron. Unless you have a uterus, it doesn't affect you in the least. And it certainly isn't taking away people's rights. If you can't trust a woman with a choice, how can you trust her with a child? What is wrong with ensuring abortions are safe, legal, and rare? If you don't like it, then don't have one. Simple as that. "I think I know, with regard to the way I live and intend to keep on living my own life - but as I grow older and meaner and uglier it becomes more & more clear to me that only a lunatic or an egomaniacal a--hole would try to impose the structure of his own lifestyle on people who don't entirely understand it, unless he's ready to assume a personal responsibility for the consequences." --Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in America posted by
allRED
on Oct 15, 2006 at 06:11 AM
As I posted earlier, sometimes I can post and most of the time I have wait a/ day or so for this or any other blog in here to open for me , I dont understand why I have this trouble. But with that said, I'm back.Matt how long has marriage of men and women been lawful ? 5 years? 100 ? for ever? Am I the one changing the law ? Dont come back @ me with those stupid remarks, use some comment sense, the law is the law and as I posted above, you keep digging and digging till you find some liberal judge or judges to come out and claim it's unconstitutional. Laws that have been laws for ever. You did the same thing with abortion, when there was enough liberal judges on the supreme court you bought forth cases to the courts knowing abortion would be passed and now Bush is doing the opposite and your crying fowl, we have a right to put in judges just as the liberals did 35+ years ago. I know most in here have seen the fight in the senate over the new judges and you blocking and blocking. I hope even with the crap Bush has allowed, Republicans are still the best party in my eyes to hold office and yes mistakes and mistakes but they are still on the right side of the line. Beside taking God out of everything and allowing 14 year old girls to abort, you are now digging and digging gay rights. I believe you and all your liberal buddies will win some day, but until that time, i'm here to fight untill. Ron. posted by
allRED
on Oct 15, 2006 at 06:26 AM
Hardliner in your quote: the right to marry whom you want: fundamental right: since when?Havent any of you seen the news? More and more children, more and more mass murders, you pass a law, that states our fundamental rights to marry who we choose, you open the door too multiple marriages, 14's marrying 50/60 year old men, sheep becoming your wife, dogs marrying women, because it's a fundamental right. I have ask God to for give me for saying this ( abortion allowed if both parents are liberals ) If you cant see how this worlds ( moral values ) have changed, then dont come back on me and say, thats stupid to say we will marry animals! Ron. posted by
allRED
on Oct 15, 2006 at 06:31 AM
Tom: to answer your post would allow false churches to perform gay marriage, under age marriage, animal marriage, we have enough phoney churches now without creating, (the church of fundamental rights).Ron. posted by
allRED
on Oct 15, 2006 at 06:34 AM
If you dont hear from me, it's not because I dont have a answer, it will be because I cant get into the blog everyday, still trying to figure out the reason.Ron. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Oct 15, 2006 at 09:10 AM
Ron, . What do mass murders have to with gay marriage? . Are you seriously suggesting that the government be the one to decide what a false church is? As I noted before, there are quite a few Christians who think your church is a false church. I'm sure you know some that do. posted by
allRED
on Oct 15, 2006 at 02:18 PM
I guess I'll have to make it alittle clearer, Hardlinder, with the morals of this country falling apart with the mass murders, the rape of childern and women and then pass laws of the (fundamental rights church), I hope my post is clearer now. You dont seem to have trouble with 14 year olds getting married. Would you have problems marrying a sheep or dog or cat ? because it's your fundamental right ? Any one can pay $50.00 and join the universal church and become a pastor, if the laws were changed to your way of fundamental rights, I can see the universal church marrying anything aperson wanted to marry. If you have no problem with that, then we are to far apart to even have a discussion.If that didnt answer your question, then one more try, gays, murders, abortion, rape of childern, rape or sex with a minor, all of these are digging holes in americas moral rock. I cant put it any clearer. Ron. posted by
TomW
on Oct 15, 2006 at 02:34 PM
If you find a sheep or dog or cat that can give informed consent and is of sound mind to enter a contract, we'll talk. :)As for the rest of it, we agree on everything but abortion and gay people and we both want a world where abortions are more rare, we just disagree on how to minimize them. As for people being gay, this seems to be the same divide that opened up in the country over interracial marriage. That battle is mostly behind us now, but it think that you again can't make a legal argument against civil unions, only a moral one and frankly, I don't think government should be in the morality business unless you want to open up the possibility of them banning pork products based on Biblical Law. The government needs to get out of the churches. posted by
randomfactor
on Oct 15, 2006 at 02:44 PM
Tom, it's exactly the same divide. The battle is "mostly behind us" but not that far. The same arguments being floated now against same-sex marriage are the ones swatted down in the 60's by the Loving decision.
posted by
allRED
on Oct 15, 2006 at 02:51 PM
Hardliner: The Bible says to obey the laws of the land, Jesus ask who's picture is on this coin, they said Cesar's, Jesus basically said, then do those things, the laws of Cesar. I know Jesus didnt mean to break the laws of Cesar, unless it went agaisnt the laws of God. If our law says 14 is to young, then thats the law. When Our law said Abortion was illegal that was the law, but then you found judges to change the law and Bush is trying to get new judges to reverse that law and then that will be the law. Ron. posted by
randomfactor
on Oct 15, 2006 at 02:57 PM
Ron, abortion was legal before it was illegal before it was legal. posted by
randomfactor
on Oct 15, 2006 at 03:04 PM
How about a compromise which says: Churches may marry whomever they want without government interference. If those two individuals are able to enter into legal contracts (not underage) and not already under a marriage contract with someone else, they may *ALSO* or *INSTEAD* enter a marriage contract entitling them to full spousal benefits. (And don't give me antipolygamy arguments--there are legal reasons for not permitting three people to marry which are far stronger than the reasons for denying it to two persons of the same sex.) . Sheep are Right Out. . I fail to see how that infringes on your rights in any way. posted by
allRED
on Oct 15, 2006 at 03:09 PM
Random show me where it was legal before it was illegal in America? If the law is changed to ban interacial marriage then so be it till we get back into office, slavery was legal, till we changed it. Abortion was illegal till you changed it. Gay marriage has never been legal, not in the United States and that is the law I follow.Ron. posted by
randomfactor
on Oct 15, 2006 at 03:21 PM
Abortion was legal and advertised in early America. It was made illegal in this country in the mid-1800's on a state-by-state basis.. So, once again, if slavery were to be made legal once again you'd approve? . Same-sex marriage is legal now in at least one US state, so you are incorrect, but now that you know I presume you'll support "the law of the land," or at least the Commonwealth. posted by
allRED
on Oct 15, 2006 at 03:28 PM
Random: are you going to use (fundamental rights of a person) as Hardliner does? we have the right to marry who ever? Because if you do then a three some would be next and a fouth some and etc. Then because of the compromise which was allowed, dogs sheep and etc would be allowed. As I said earlier, do what you want in your bedroom, just dont down grade marriage with a man and women by allowing, men with men and women with women, I dont want to use words here that name the diffence between man and man in marriage and of course the same words with women and women, for some preverted reason alot dont seem to see the diffence, maybe i'm the only one that knows, but when I married and I believe most who married wanted there own childern, I wanted someone that was from me and my wife, if we couldnt have childern, then sure, we would have adopted. But you know, 90% of us work that way, it's called NORMAL, but then you have 10% that cant handle a normal love relations.Ron. posted by
allRED
on Oct 15, 2006 at 03:32 PM
Random I will follow the law of the land, till we can change it. You see why the courts are your last stand, you lost both house's and the Prezzzzz, courts are your last great hope and your losing it.Ron. posted by
allRED
on Oct 15, 2006 at 03:48 PM
Maine is one of 50 states and by what I see 90% of the states have rejected gay marriage, nice try, when the laws are changed I will obey them. I believe with the new court, Abortion is on the way out. Also if gay marriage is bought before them, gay marriage will be on it's way out. I believe right now God is giving us one last chance to clean up this mess the liberals have wormed us into, if we miss that, then, yes holy hell will be our future.Ron. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Oct 15, 2006 at 04:23 PM
AllRED, I never said that marrying 14-year olds was OK with me. I was pointing out that your own Bible has no problem with it. Since you're the one who is speaking of God, while speaking of marrying 14-year olds being a bad thing, I'm pointing out that the Bible has no objection to it -- and that marriages of minors have been condoned in Christian societies for centuries.. I'm not terribly worried about people marrying goat or sheep. I can't foresee much of a demand for such a thing. . While you mention threesomes and foursomes, the Bible has no problem with that, either. Polygamy is all over the Old Testament, and polygamy is historically almost as common as what we call "traditional marriage." . I'm just pointing out that many of the things that you consider wrong, the Bible does not consider wrong. posted by
allRED
on Oct 15, 2006 at 04:36 PM
Ok Hardliner but are they legal here? Read up Jesus said obey the laws of the land.Ron. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Oct 15, 2006 at 04:40 PM
Romans 13, I know. posted by
allRED
on Oct 15, 2006 at 04:40 PM
I've noticed now were talking about 14's and three somes and not gay and abortion?Ron. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Oct 15, 2006 at 04:55 PM
That's because people on your side of the debate beep dragging those red herrings into the debate -- as you have done yourself.. We're talking about it because you started talking about it. posted by
allRED
on Oct 15, 2006 at 05:18 PM
Hardliner, you have a liberal view of Roman 13: I have a Conservative view: Let us walk honestly as in the day not in rioting and drunkeness not in chambering and wantonness not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ and make not provision for the flesh to fullfill the lusts there of. 1Corinthians 6: 9= Know ye not that the unrightous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulters nor effeminate= gay, ok be not deceived.1 Corinthians 7: 2-3 never the less to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband. let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. Ron. BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS: Loading Stories
Advertisement |
