(03-27-2013 09:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Again, we're missing it.

Churches don't HAVE to marry anyone. I can't go into a Jewish church and demand that they marry me... because the churches aren't denying me any civil rights.

The GOVERNMENT is.

The GOVERNMENT decided that it wanted to promote "marriage" and assigned certain "benefits" to that marriage. The Church didn't assign any benefits. It seems to me that the problem in deciding this case (without having read anything about it yet) will be that the government won't have the right to promote certain things anymore. As a straight white male, I don't really have a problem with that. I'd think that SOME people would want to think about that a little more

Agreed... In Ohio the voters passed a law that allows a family to take the possessions of their gay child's "partner" in the event that the gay child dies. Let me paint this picture...

Person A and Person B love each other but are unable to actually get "married" or "unioned." Person A then draws up a will that gives ownership of said possessions, retirement plans, etc., etc., to their Person B in the event of their death. Person B does the same with Person A. Unfortunately, Person A's parents do not approve of their child's gay relationship hence go to court to take ownership of all possessions. By law, Person B has zero claim to any of these possessions, even though Person A clearly stated they wanted the possessions to go to Person B.

Personally I think that is a complete violation of the rights of Person A. How anyone could vote that law in just makes zero sense to me, but it won by a 60/40 split because people were so concerned about "gay marriage." Give me a freaking break... having legalized gay marriage or civil unions or whatever is not going to turn me or my kids gay. It is not going to hurt me personally in any way. It is only idiocy as far as I'm concerned.

I think that is the point, MLB.

The problem is that the government decides things like, a Marriage means certain property rights... or that a parent can no longer make medical decisions for an 18yr old child, even if that child is incapacitated... so we have to come up with all sorts of legal maneuvers in an attempt to stop the government from enforcing its will.

I think a reasonable compromise would be to return "marriage" to the churches where they originated, and allow people to form legal unions however they see fit. Of course, this takes power away from the government, and some people don't like that. I find it almost funny that so many want to take THIS power away from the government, but want to leave ALL OTHER powers WITH the government. For some reason, they don't understand that just because you agree with ending THIS violation of people's ability to enter into contracts, doesn't mean that you will agree with the next one. The answer is to end ALL violations of people's abilities to enter into legal contracts, and not merely those that "society" deems important right now.

(03-26-2013 01:44 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  So, despite what you think of Rush a caller today made an excellent point. The left is painting gay marriage as a civil right, a basic human right if you will. His point was that if gay marriage is made the law of the land and churches refuse to perform them they will be violating someone's civil rights which makes them no better than the Ku Klux Klan in the eyes of government . This opens them up to federal penalties such as having their tax status removed or endless federal law suits. I had honestly never thought of this and feel it's worthy of discussion.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

THIS has been the GAY AGENDA's plan all along. Opinions about Gay marriage aren't changing, it's the media and the entertainment industry telling us it has. It is now FEAR more than anyting that has people saying Gay marriage is okay. Oppose the GAY agenda and be called a bigot. Oppose the Gay Agenda as a Professional in the Entertainment or Sports business and most likely be FIRED for doing so.

France had 300,00 protesting against gay marriage a few days ago. FRANCE.

(03-29-2013 07:00 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 01:44 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  So, despite what you think of Rush a caller today made an excellent point. The left is painting gay marriage as a civil right, a basic human right if you will. His point was that if gay marriage is made the law of the land and churches refuse to perform them they will be violating someone's civil rights which makes them no better than the Ku Klux Klan in the eyes of government . This opens them up to federal penalties such as having their tax status removed or endless federal law suits. I had honestly never thought of this and feel it's worthy of discussion.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

THIS has been the GAY AGENDA's plan all along. Opinions about Gay marriage aren't changing, it's the media and the entertainment industry telling us it has. It is now FEAR more than anyting that has people saying Gay marriage is okay. Oppose the GAY agenda and be called a bigot. Oppose the Gay Agenda as a Professional in the Entertainment or Sports business and most likely be FIRED for doing so.

Yeah, it's gotten so that we have to agree with everything and everyone or we're bigoted and full of hate. Disagree with Obama and I'm a racist. Speak against gay marriage and I'm full of hate. Call myself as a Christian and I'm labeled as part of a hate group. I hold to traditional family values and I'm a crazy right winger. Exercise my right to bear arms and I'm a nut job who's scared of my own shadow. The far left is good at name calling and bad at ideas.

The relationship (male-female) that ensures the continuation of the species deserves special social recognition ... exclusive claim to the word "marriage".

Other relationships (male-male, female-female, transgender-???) deserve equal legal status, but they have no "right" to usurp the word "marriage".

(03-29-2013 09:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The relationship (male-female) that ensures the continuation of the species deserves special social recognition ... exclusive claim to the word "marriage".

Other relationships (male-male, female-female, transgender-???) deserve equal legal status, but they have no "right" to usurp the word "marriage".

Damn. Now we want to use the force of government to protect words? Really? You have to be fcking kidding me. Words? Really?

(03-27-2013 11:03 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think that is the point, MLB.

The problem is that the government decides things like, a Marriage means certain property rights... or that a parent can no longer make medical decisions for an 18yr old child, even if that child is incapacitated... so we have to come up with all sorts of legal maneuvers in an attempt to stop the government from enforcing its will.

I think a reasonable compromise would be to return "marriage" to the churches where they originated, and allow people to form legal unions however they see fit. Of course, this takes power away from the government, and some people don't like that. I find it almost funny that so many want to take THIS power away from the government, but want to leave ALL OTHER powers WITH the government. For some reason, they don't understand that just because you agree with ending THIS violation of people's ability to enter into contracts, doesn't mean that you will agree with the next one. The answer is to end ALL violations of people's abilities to enter into legal contracts, and not merely those that "society" deems important right now.

Yes..This schit is not complicated. If the gay community however does not like this? ...F them. It will tell me that they have another agenda other than being able to contract with each other as heteros and receive the same government legal benefits of that contract.

(03-29-2013 09:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The relationship (male-female) that ensures the continuation of the species deserves special social recognition ... exclusive claim to the word "marriage".

Other relationships (male-male, female-female, transgender-???) deserve equal legal status, but they have no "right" to usurp the word "marriage".

I understand this, but also think about how silly it is.

If I start calling my brown hair "blonde", does that make your goldilocks any less blonde? If society wants to call my hair blonde, just like yours (even though it's not the same), are you harmed in any way?

That's how superficial this argument is.

(03-30-2013 12:21 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  I understand this, but also think about how silly it is.

If I start calling my brown hair "blonde", does that make your goldilocks any less blonde? If society wants to call my hair blonde, just like yours (even though it's not the same), are you harmed in any way?

That's how superficial this argument is.

And clearly you acknowledge that just calling your brown hair blonde doesn't make it so.

Marriage by tradition, by religion, and by every other measure has always been between a man and a woman. Calling two people of the same sex "married" is as absurd as calling your brown hair blonde. You are changing the very meaning of the word. The attempt to call something marriage that isn't, and never has been, is what's silly.

As far as churches being forced to perform gay ceremonies, it's coming. It won't be through mandate. Instead it will take the guise of the government saying it will not allow tax exempt status to any organization classified as a "hate group." And if a church refuses to do a gay ceremony they will be reported and have their tax exempt status revoked. Won't be this year, won't be next. But give it 10 years. And as Tom has stated, that is personally a goal of his. To see every church lose tax exempt status.

(03-29-2013 09:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The relationship (male-female) that ensures the continuation of the species deserves special social recognition ... exclusive claim to the word "marriage".

Other relationships (male-male, female-female, transgender-???) deserve equal legal status, but they have no "right" to usurp the word "marriage".

I agree. 1 man , 4 female relationship should have special social recognition. I'm ensuring that the species continues.

(03-30-2013 12:01 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 09:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The relationship (male-female) that ensures the continuation of the species deserves special social recognition ... exclusive claim to the word "marriage".

Other relationships (male-male, female-female, transgender-???) deserve equal legal status, but they have no "right" to usurp the word "marriage".

Damn. Now we want to use the force of government to protect words? Really? You have to be fcking kidding me. Words? Really?

And who is it using force of government to tamper with words?

Languages evolve or die. The English spoken now would be a completely different language than the English spoken by our forefathers. I doubt they'd understand much of what is said on TV daily. So why should we care?

(03-29-2013 09:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The relationship (male-female) that ensures the continuation of the species deserves special social recognition ... exclusive claim to the word "marriage".

Other relationships (male-male, female-female, transgender-???) deserve equal legal status, but they have no "right" to usurp the word "marriage".

+1

(03-30-2013 12:01 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 09:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The relationship (male-female) that ensures the continuation of the species deserves special social recognition ... exclusive claim to the word "marriage".

Other relationships (male-male, female-female, transgender-???) deserve equal legal status, but they have no "right" to usurp the word "marriage".

Damn. Now we want to use the force of government to protect words? Really? You have to be fcking kidding me. Words? Really?

What force?

(03-30-2013 12:21 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 09:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The relationship (male-female) that ensures the continuation of the species deserves special social recognition ... exclusive claim to the word "marriage".

Other relationships (male-male, female-female, transgender-???) deserve equal legal status, but they have no "right" to usurp the word "marriage".

I understand this, but also think about how silly it is.

If I start calling my brown hair "blonde", does that make your goldilocks any less blonde? If society wants to call my hair blonde, just like yours (even though it's not the same), are you harmed in any way?

That's how superficial this argument is.

The word marriage is a representation of tradition. Is it not a crime to say you won war medals when you didn't? They can reserve parking spaces for certain employees but they can't reserve a word for traditionally married people? Why do gays even call themselves gays, why not call themselves straight? They gladly put themselves into a specifically defined group but then protest whEn we say, ok, but don't include us. They have definitions that define them, we have a definition that for centuries defined marriage.

So what if we called your first day of school your Baptism and your graduation a resurrection? What if we called the President his eminence or his magesty and the first lady the virgin Mary? Do we think some people might be offended? Words matter because they carry significance. The english language is VERY specific compared to most...

(03-30-2013 11:51 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  Is it not a crime to say you won war medals when you didn't?

No, at least not in typical cases.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_11_210

(03-30-2013 12:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So what if we called your first day of school your Baptism and your graduation a resurrection? What if we called the President his eminence or his magesty and the first lady the virgin Mary? Do we think some people might be offended? Words matter because they carry significance. The english language is VERY specific compared to most...

Not sure about offended, but I certainly would be confused. Though probably not that much more than calling a graduation a commencement (a resurrection might be stretching the imagery a little too far though - being in school isn't that bad). People don't seem terribly offended by baptisms of fire, and depending on the school that could actually be appropriate. I actually don't think His Eminence/Magesty is any more ridiculous than Mr. President (assuming it's not an official designation which would run afoul of Article 1 Section 9). And Virgin Mary is clearly incorrect, and doubly so; not only is her name Michelle but she also has two kids.

None of your proposals convey any useful information - they are merely an attempt to relabel an existing thing. This is more akin to the civil union movement that some on here have proposed as a useful alternative (and I'm not suggesting it's a bad one). Take something that has an existing label and change it to something else.

When gays say they are married useful information about their status is conveyed. Explanatory work is done by the term. And I don't think too many people are really confused about what is meant when two gays say they are married. They might be confused about how it happened, or why, or how we could live in a society where that could happen. But not about what it means.

(03-30-2013 12:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So what if we called your first day of school your Baptism and your graduation a resurrection? What if we called the President his eminence or his magesty and the first lady the virgin Mary?

What changes if we do?

Quote:Do we think some people might be offended?

What if they are?

Quote:Words matter because they carry significance.

They carry a different significance to different people. Should we also restrict the N-word so that only black people can use it? No, that's a ridiculous use of govt. Just as it's a ridiculous use of govt. to have anything to do with restricting the word "marriage".

Get the word "marriage" and the ceremonial use of it out of the govt. Just as a Catholic church can refuse to marry a non-believer, any other church can choose to marry a non-believer. It isn't a govt. service, it is a religious one. And one in which no one is harmed. Govt. has no place in it.