Obama 7 - now what?

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I've been called that and worse before on this and other issues where conservative social values are anathema to most of this board. That's ok. Such is life in today's society when you don't buy into the latest PC causes. My convictions are anchored in something a lot stronger than the approval of posters on an internet message board.

Under the definition of bigot, your beliefs toward gays could qualify you as a bigot. Get over being called a bigot, under your religious beliefs you'll do just fine in the long run, right? Obviously being called a bigot bothers you otherwise you wouldn't mention the approval of posters on an internet message board.

It's almost as annoying with anti-gay marriage people like yourself as it is with honest to god racists who just aren't honest and upfront about their feelings and then they get mad when you call *them* bigots.

The polling all the time is very close, much closer than the actual voting is. Why is that? Is it because some people won't admit they are anti gay marriage? Are they so ashamed of their beliefs they won't admit to a stranger how they will vote? If you don't feel comfortable telling people how you feel about gay marriage maybe, just maybe, you're wrong in your beliefs if you can't tell others about them.

For those like Bob, who are honest conservatives not afraid to voice their opinions kudos to you. Deal with our opinions and stay strong with your convictions. I'd take an honest bigot like yourself over a lying person who can't make up their mind. I know where I stand with you, and that means something.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

By that same reasoning, why should anyone, gay or straight, receive recognition from the government and the people? Why should we put forth the effort to recognize it for one group, but when the other group demands recognition respond that the recognition really isn't that important anyways?

Uhhh...because the Bible says so DUH!

And yes, if you believe gays shouldn't get married because they are gay you are a bigot. Sorry if that hurts your poor little feelings but its the truth so suck it up and deal. You are discriminating, you have that right for now but that doesn't change what you are. I am not going to worry about your feelings if you feel the need to hate against an entire group of people.

If you are against gay marriage because you dont want the government involved at all, that is a different story as long as you are consistent and feel the same way about straight marriage. (that doesn't make you a bigot FWIW) Hell I dont want a law legalizing gay marriage on the federal level I want a federal mandate not recognizing anything but civil unions...leave marriage to the churches and synagogues to recognize. None of this separate but equal crap everyone gets the same thing. If the old people are gonna get a hernia over the use of the word marriage then just throw the word out of the law plain and simple.

Oh and just to poke at the pius a bit...do you honestly think your God is going to be happy that you denigrated his children because of a sexual orientation? Yeah I am sure Jesus/Yahweh/Allah is in heaven right now cheering you on...they all seemed to champion the idea of hate over compassion...

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I'm not sure why everyone gets so worked up about this. By and large, the American public doesn't want gay marriage legalized. Marriage is supposed to be about two people being in love with each other, not two people demanding recognition from the government (and by proxy, the people represented by that government).

So why are you against gay marriage?

-Two people that love each other, wait gay people can't love each other?

-Any straight marriage is two people demanding recognition from the government on their union. So why the double standard there?

I've been called that and worse before on this and other issues where conservative social values are anathema to most of this board. That's ok. Such is life in today's society when you don't buy into the latest PC causes. My convictions are anchored in something a lot stronger than the approval of posters on an internet message board.

Indeed, but why is it that your convictions supersedes anothers? Especially since their convictions apply only to themselves, while your try and force yours on others. Do you also think those old PC causes like anti slavery, suffrage for blacks/women were wrong?

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

If you can show me where straight couples demanded recognition from the government, you'd have a valid argument. But I very highly doubt that when the state governments started issuing marriage licenses, it was at the behest of straight couples. It was the government deciding to regulate something that was originally a religious ceremony.....which would go against everything a good liberal believes in with regards to the seperation of Church and state.

entwined with state benefits for quite some time.
Marriage was never a purely religious issue, or at the very least not for millenia. See Unofan's post about common law marriage. Its been

And can someone still explain to me why gays getting married is a bad thing other than "the bible says so" or "its icky"? If anything they're attempting to form a stronger, monogamous, family unit conservatives seem to adore.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

entwined with state benefits for quite some time.
Marriage was never a purely religious issue, or at the very least not for millenia. See Unofan's post about common law marriage. Its been

And can someone still explain to me why gays getting married is a bad thing other than "the bible says so" or "its icky"? If anything they're attempting to form a stronger, monogamous, family unit conservatives seem to adore.

If two men marry, there won't be a women in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant...

If two men marry how will the "head of the household" sleep with other women?

If two men marry no one will be shocked when they are Republican and they turn out to be gay...

Marriage leads to less sex so if two women marry no more lesbian porn...

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

So why are you against gay marriage?

-Two people that love each other, wait gay people can't love each other?

-Any straight marriage is two people demanding recognition from the government on their union. So why the double standard there?


Indeed, but why is it that your convictions supersedes anothers? Especially since their convictions apply only to themselves, while your try and force yours on others. Do you also think those old PC causes like anti slavery, suffrage for blacks/women were wrong?

Your post makes zero sense. Believe me....I just got married last month, and I would have preferred not to have to go to marriage prep classes so that the piece of paper the State of Minnesota gives me only costs $40 rather than the $120 it would have cost otherwise. I don't think that the state or federal government should have their noses in it to begin with. A straight couple is forced to get a license, which doesn't amount to "demanding recognition".

And where in the hell did Bob try to force his convictions on you? How did he state that his convictions "supercede" someone else's? What are you even trying to say in this post? Who the hell are you to criticize someone else's personal beliefs when you have no idea what they are?

You may very well be the first person I ignore on this board.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

One of the myths from melodrama is that only bad people have bad beliefs. Plenty of good people inherit prejudices. The hope is that prejudice evaporates in the face of actual human contact and experience. Fearful boogeymen lurk in dark closets -- fiat lux.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

If you can show me where straight couples demanded recognition from the government, you'd have a valid argument. But I very highly doubt that when the state governments started issuing marriage licenses, it was at the behest of straight couples. It was the government deciding to regulate something that was originally a religious ceremony.....which would go against everything a good liberal believes in with regards to the seperation of Church and state.

Any straight couple registered to get married is in effect demanding recognition from the government. They could just commit to each other privately, but as long as they want the benefits given to married couples by the government, they have to be recognized first; yes, granted, that's what 99.999% of couples end up doing, but in the end if it's just about being in love they don't absolutely need such recognition and benefits.

But I do agree that we should separately government and religious involvement in any sort of partnership. As Handy said, government should issue civil unions to gay and straight couples, and any religious or private institutition can marry whoever they want and refuse to marry whoever they don't want. I'd like to see that happen, but then I'd also like to take a rocketship to the moon, but I see that as just as likely to happen in my lifetime.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

And can someone still explain to me why gays getting married is a bad thing other than "the bible says so" or "its icky"? If anything they're attempting to form a stronger, monogamous, family unit conservatives seem to adore.

So, someone's personal beliefs can't be used when opposing same-sex marriage.

That makes zero sense.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Marriage leads to less sex so if two women marry no more lesbian porn...

Scissor me timbers!

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Your post makes zero sense. Believe me....I just got married last month, and I would have preferred not to have to go to marriage prep classes so that the piece of paper the State of Minnesota gives me only costs $40 rather than the $120 it would have cost otherwise. I don't think that the state or federal government should have their noses in it to begin with. A straight couple is forced to get a license, which doesn't amount to "demanding recognition".

And where in the hell did Bob try to force his convictions on you? How did he state that his convictions "supercede" someone else's? What are you even trying to say in this post? Who the hell are you to criticize someone else's personal beliefs when you have no idea what they are?

You may very well be the first person I ignore on this board.

No one forces you to get a license. You could find a church to marry you and tell them you don't want the legal entanglements. Of course, without the legal entanglements you don't get some of the rights and priveleges the State gives only to those that are married, but again you don't want any recognition, right?

 

[SPIN CONTROL]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Marriage leads to less sex so if two women marry no more lesbian porn...

That might be the best argument I have ever read to oppose same sex marriage.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

So, someone's personal beliefs can't be used when opposing same-sex marriage.

That makes zero sense.

Look, people can have their beliefs all they want, and they can take any stance from their beliefs that they want, that's their perogative. I think his point, though, is that when it comes to have these beliefs affect what others go about doing, the Bible/icky arguments (which I'm not saying is your argument, I'm just continuing Boom's point) don't hold weight because they're expecting personal beliefs that you hold to affect what others do, and that in and of itself is a pretty weak basis for making law (not that it hasn't resulted in many of the laws throughout history, but I think we can agree something shouldn't become law solely because one group believes it, there's need to be a more comprehensive justufication).

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Any straight couple registered to get married is in effect demanding recognition from the government. They could just commit to each other privately, but as long as they want the benefits given to married couples by the government, they have to be recognized first; yes, granted, that's what 99.999% of couples end up doing, but in the end if it's just about being in love they don't absolutely need such recognition and benefits.

But I do agree that we should separately government and religious involvement in any sort of partnership. As Handy said, government should issue civil unions to gay and straight couples, and any religious or private institutition can marry whoever they want and refuse to marry whoever they don't want. I'd like to see that happen, but then I'd also like to take a rocketship to the moon, but I see that as just as likely to happen in my lifetime.

Anyone who wishes to be married within most every organized religion must get a state marriage license in the State of Minnesota. I see that as me being forced to report my marriage to the state, not me and my wife demanding recognition from the state.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Look, people can have their beliefs all they want, and they can take any stance from their beliefs that they want, that's their perogative. I think his point, though, is that when it comes to have these beliefs affect what others go about doing, the Bible/icky arguments (which I'm not saying is your argument, I'm just continuing Boom's point) don't hold weight because they're expecting personal beliefs that you hold to affect what others do, and that in and of itself is a pretty weak basis for making law (not that it hasn't resulted in many of the laws throughout history, but I think we can agree something shouldn't become law solely because one group believes it, there's need to be a more comprehensive justufication).

Every law is based on the personal beliefs of the majority. So where is the difference here? Contrary to popular belief, the United States is a representative republic, not a democracy.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Every law is based on the personal beliefs of the majority. So where is the difference here? Contrary to popular belief, the United States is a representative republic, not a democracy.

Really? Every law?

Sorry, mob rules went out with the Bill Of Rights.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Stop quoting Plante26 people. I'm ignoring his brutal stupidity and ignorance.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Under the definition of bigot, your beliefs toward gays could qualify you as a bigot. Get over being called a bigot, under your religious beliefs you'll do just fine in the long run, right? Obviously being called a bigot bothers you otherwise you wouldn't mention the approval of posters on an internet message board.

It's almost as annoying with anti-gay marriage people like yourself as it is with honest to god racists who just aren't honest and upfront about their feelings and then they get mad when you call *them* bigots.

The polling all the time is very close, much closer than the actual voting is. Why is that? Is it because some people won't admit they are anti gay marriage? Are they so ashamed of their beliefs they won't admit to a stranger how they will vote? If you don't feel comfortable telling people how you feel about gay marriage maybe, just maybe, you're wrong in your beliefs if you can't tell others about them.

For those like Bob, who are honest conservatives not afraid to voice their opinions kudos to you. Deal with our opinions and stay strong with your convictions. I'd take an honest bigot like yourself over a lying person who can't make up their mind. I know where I stand with you, and that means something.

Well, that's a backhanded compliment if I've ever gotten one. An "honest bigot"?

There are a handful of longtime, thoughtful posters around, some of whom I rarely agree with, that if they called me a bigot, it'd probably bother me. Like Kepler for example. If he every really blasted me, it'd resonate more than if someone like rufus does. And of course bothering me is a long way from having it impact what I believe or not. The rest of the posters who say all sorts of things don't phase me in the least.

I think the polling is closer because there are social conservatives out there who see what happens to someone like the former Miss California, who was pilloried for just saying what she believed, and in a very mild way. I think some of them would purposely avoid participating in a poll or survey. We live in a society where unfortunately many people can't control themselves when around people who have very different views on things than they do. There's no benefit to participating in a survey or poll, and if it somehow came out that you took a non-PC view, there's a lot of very vehement people who could make your life unpleasant. It's unlikely I'd participate in any sort of survey on this kind of hot button issue.

I've always assumed that our society will gradually become less and less tolerant of someone like me with traditional Christian views, likely someday leading to open persecution. But, so be it. I can only control how I conduct myself towards others, and I treat all with respect, regardless of if they disagree or agree with me on this or other issues.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Stop quoting Plante26 people. I'm ignoring his brutal stupidity and ignorance.

I am Handyman and I approve/concur with this message

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Anyone who wishes to be married within most every organized religion must get a state marriage license in the State of Minnesota. I see that as me being forced to report my marriage to the state, not me and my wife demanding recognition from the state.

How does "demanding recognition" or not make any difference? The fact is that the government recognizes heterosexual marriages, but does not recognize homosexual marriages. Whether heterosexuals demanded that recognition or not is irrelevant.

Does the fact that white heterosexual couples didn't demand government recognition mean that inter-racial marriages should still be prohibited?