Skip to comments.The Answer is Civil Unions…There. Now, Shut Up. (Surprise BARF alert!)
Posted on 05/11/2012 7:59:57 PM PDT by Houmatt
With liberty and justice for all unless youre gay.
Ill say it. Might even be one of the few conservatives that will openly cede that homosexuals are discriminated against in America, and its truly a shame.
Rights granted to us under the Constitution are not meant to be selectively issued. As much as I believe in states rights, I do not believe it is a inherent right of a group of people to collectively restrict the rights of another group of people.
The problem with the anti-gay marriage argument is that no matter the route you take it, it seems to always come back to a particular religious view or set of values. In America, we werent intended to legislate morality, we do it all the time, but we werent meant to do it, because morality and personal values are relative to each person.
For example, I think its morally wrong to eat a domesticated animal that is viewed by many as a member of the family. Barack Obama would disagree with me. Therefore, I will carry on with my life and not eat a dog, whereas our President may or may not enjoy the occasional shish-ka-poodle. So, instead of wasting time and money by drafting some strange overreaching bill that touches very few people, to avoid the pointless fighting, and to preserve our own personal rights, I will not eat a dog, and our President, who shall remain nameless, will eat his dog, in the privacy of his own home. There. No harm, no foul. Not such a BFD as Joe Biden would say.
Same goes for marriage. Same logic.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecollegeconservative.com ...
Why in the blue blazes are they posting this kind of stuff?
Why? Because they have been properly indoctrinated.
And why, pray tell, are you passing it along?
You would think their web site could handle more than 10 web page hits before crashing.
Ok, so while we’re there, let’s take it even further....
So why do we discriminate against people who want to have sex with children? Or Animals? Don’t they deserve the same rights as everybody else? What if I want five wives, who are you to deny me my rights to have as many wives as I want.......
Gays can marry, just like anyone else.
They can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.
Even normal people can’t marry certain other people. You can’t marry someone already married, you can’t marry close blood relatives, you can’t marry people deemed to young to give consent to marry, and you can’t marry someone who doesn’t want to marry you.
Further I’d say gays have in the past followed the rules and have married opposite sex partners, even having kids with them. They were able to live with the rules everyone else has to follow, equal treatment. Now they just want special treatment.
Do the gays maybe understand that because of their lackluster procrastination, their aversion to Christianity and their completely hostile spoiled ways that they have avoided creating their own definition?
The term "Marriage" is taken by heteros. Hey, nothing against gays, but you'll need to find your own definition. "Marriage" is an age-old tradition between a Man and a Woman. More importantly, it is a Sacrament.
There is NO such thing as gay marriage. Anyone knows that.
Because I'm trying to save your ears!
What would the SPCA or PETA say about that?
There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL right to marry. The US Constitution does not touch marriage. Is is NOT discussed. It has always been a STATE regulated privilage. Now, I know liberals do not believe this. I know the USSC did intervene to say inter-racial marriage was a right. Olsen is already plannin to take this to the USSC under equal protection. Will they screw with the Constitution again with their living Constitution clap trap. You Betcha. I would agree to civil unions. But, I draw the line with the name marriage being used. But, civil unions is not good enough for the homosexuals cause the real end in total social acceptance of homosexuality. I belive it is too late. The younger generation has been propagandized and their parents generation allowed it to happen. So goes the World. Everyone had their eyes closed while the whole plan was hatched decades ago. Just like Roe vs Wade took decades of building the case in the courts.
If you enjoy reading and participating on FR, if you think it's a worthwhile endeavor and would like to help us keep it going, please click the link above and donate via secure server. Make it a monthly if you can.
Or mail checks to Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794.
Free Republic is funded solely by contributions made by liberty loving grassroots conservatives like you who enjoy and use it.
We take no money from and are not beholden to outsiders or corporate string pullers.
Beholden to no one!
Do we have to discriminate against someome or some thing?
Yes we do! We must discriminate against evil! We cannot serve two masters (one being evil, the other being righteous) we will love one and hate the other!
Those that promote same sex marriages, hate opposite sex marriages! They discriminate against heteral-sexual marriages!
Every day life is full of choices, some choices have eternal consequences!
As humans we cannot love righteousness and evil at the same time.
Even Moses made a conscious choice:
“Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season. Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt: for he had not respect unto the repompence of the reward.” (Hebrews 11:25-26)
I am opposed to same sex marriage.
It would not matter if the “couple” was homosexual or heterosexual.
Is someone going to make me prove I am a practicing homosexual before I am permitted to “marry” a female business partner in order to take advantage of various tax deductions and numerous legal protections that were designed to protect, encourage, and strengthen the family as the basic unit in our society?
The entire argument for “gay marriage” is a stupid political joke.
Any two people can easily sign joint full “Power of Attorney” legal documents.
My former husband and I did (against legal advise) and it was a beautiful thing!
Make medical decisions for each other? check
Have total right to make all financial choices? check
It went far beyond simple marriage rights. My partner (husband) could sign any and all legal documents, contracts, financial transactions up to and including re-enlistment in the DOD on my behalf!
He could have even legally divorced me.
If we were not married, with a full Power of Attorney, he could have married me.
Our society consistently says NO to attempted claims to marriage as other than that of one man and one woman.
I have yet to hear a reason to alter that.
Might even be one of the few conservatives that will openly cede that homosexuals are discriminated against in America, and its truly a shame
No its not. We discriminate against rapists, pedophiles,beastilists, and homosexuals. ALL were crimes until a few short years ago.
More to the point, why are we posting this stuff?
I may not live that many more years, but I can't imagine ever accepting that there are no moral absolutes.
I shudder at the thought that such a simple simple scenario as a rabid bugs and bunny fanatic living next door and embracing the sanctity of all life to the boint of allowing rats, cockroaches, mosquitos etc. to explode unchecked on his property, should be mandatory for the sake of pure libertarianism.
Unfortunately, reflecting on the mindless "no harm no foul" platitude creates the untenable scenario that is impossible to resolve.
One man's total licence is another man's oppression, illness or death.
Hmmm, three of those examples are still illegal and involve a participant who doesn’t consent. Understand the difference?
First, rights are granted by God, not the Constitution. If that strikes you as "being religious" or being too harsh and judgmental, its not. I am pointing this out because it is correct, and a little thought about the matter will show it is. Moreover recognizing that rights are God given helps the cause of gay marriage more than it hurts it. So I am helping you out by the correction (although I think you wrong on other grounds). Its just a recognition that rights are God given rather than granted by a groups of people who write a Constitution which it is to be hoped will not trample on peoples rights. Suppose there were no God or any transcendent moral law, then it would follow there were no rights except by the consent of those with the power to enforce their own view; also if ou Constitution could grant rights, then an amendment could take them away. A materialist view implies that owning a slave was just as much a right before the 14th amendment as the freedom of speech was at the time. But after the civil war settled the issue, the right to own a slave was revoked. This is nonsense though. Whatever men say and whatever they agree to, the slavery of the old South was never a right.
Secondly, the contention is not whether or not gay people can associate freely with each other it is whether or not the rest of society shall be forced by law to change the definition of marriage to make gay people feel better about their associations. I will allow, and hope that others would agree, that gay couples ought be afforded some form of legal domestic partnership status for administrative purposes, and they are just as free to call it a marriage as anyone is to claim that pi is 3 or that 2 plus 2 is 16. There are no laws against talking nonsense.
Perhaps unintentionally, you are never the less asserting that the Constitution compels a free people to change the definition of marriage to make gay people feel better. Certainly this will be news to those that wrote it. Perhaps next week you will find it granting a right of siblings to change the definition of marriage to include brother and sister couples. Who knows what might be in there when one is guided by fear of offending those who make it their business to be easily offended rather than reason.
Rape by definition involves a party that does not consent, the other three can be either consensual or not.
So you think a child can make informed consent to sex in the eyes of the law? I think not.
And I’m pretty sure animals can’t make informed consent to anything at all.
Well said. And hopefully.........Obama’s swing towards gay marriage will entirely backfire on his campaign and cause him to lose millions of votes. Funny how Obama went along with the program after that clown Biden opened his mouth in favor of “gay marriage”. The perfect storm is when the politically blind lead the politically foolish.
Not to turn this into an exercise in semantics, however you can't simply say I'm a conservative that believes in gay marriage. The terms conservative and liberal have had their meanings changed over time to be almost unrecognizable, however some tenets of the two meanings remain in the area of morality. A conservative is one who holds to traditional moral values as opposed to liberals who are more willing to see change. This much is true even back to the period of the classic liberals (Locke etc). At that time a liberal was one who stood for Liberty. Modern liberals have kept the lose moral ideas of the enlightenment and continued to march on with them while at the same time embracing large government. Libertarians, the group to which your argument really belongs, are in many ways the modern version of the classic liberals. So, based on his position and argument the author is not a conservative.
Plumbing 101 Fail
I think most people realize a child should not have sex with an adult whether they consent or not. Be careful here not to equivocate between what consent actually means, and the admissibility of consent in legal decisions.
And Im pretty sure animals cant make informed consent to anything at all.
Animals can certainly consent and not consent to things. As further evidenced of you throwing in "informed", it seems you are indeed determined to equivocate on some level, although I suspect you are not fully aware of it yet...so I am here to help. Lets break it down: although ethics and legality are related, they are not the same thing, and although basic materialistic facts are related to both, they are not the same thing...
In a basic literal sense both animals and children might consent, not consent, or be more or less indifferent toward some action taken with them, and that is all that I was pointing out with my former post (although I suspected then you were confusing the legal sense with both the moral sense and basic material sense while not realizing it).
In a legal sense the consent of an animal or child to a sex act is (as understood by this layman) not permitted as a valid defense against the charges of sexual crimes.
In an ethical sense then (the sense upon which both human behavior and human laws ought to be based, rather than merely a convention of what our behavior and laws actually are), it seems clear to most that pedophilia and bestiality ought be made illegal even in cases where there was consent. A sloppy way of saying this (and of thinking about it) is to say, as you have that this actually means they can't consent.
But lo, the distinction between the ethical question of bestiality and pedophilia on one hand and gay sex on the other can not rest on the concept of consent. Only the distinction between rape and the other three can be.