Skip to comments.The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
Posted on 08/19/2010 6:18:04 AM PDT by throwback
click here to read article
I wasn’t on FR.
You did not reply to any of my factual posts, that’s what I was referring to, while you did reply to other people.
You do not make your position clear. If you do, then it’s possible to have a discussion. If you do not clearly state your own position, such discussion is meaningless, all about poersonalities/posting styles and other useless junk.
Now that’s a freaky chair. Not very comfortable, I’d say! lol
He claims to be just passing through.
I don’t believe him.
He’s in league with the cats.
Thank you for the civil reply!
I think it is better we drop the line of discussion -
The discussion itself tends to be laden with emotion over reason and, I have seen a few areas where my line of reasoning leads to legal implications I find unacceptable and want to think about this a bit ... I would hope that others may do so as well (on both sides of the Government involvment in marriage argument, I could personally care less whether a gay living arrangement is called “marriage” as that, in the end, is just a word).
Mr. Olsen says, “So there are now three classes of Californians: heterosexual couples who can get married, divorced, and remarried, if they wish; same-sex couples who cannot get married but can live together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex couples who are now married but who, if they divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot stand”
There is a fourth class: single people. Equality for all. End discrimination by ending government marriage and civil unions.
What would happen if government withdrew from the marriage business and the civil union business?
Would people stop falling in love?
Would people stop having beautiful weddings?
Would churches stop marrying people?
Would people stop living together in caring committed relationships?
Would people stop forming families?
Would people stop making babies?
Would parents stop caring for their children?
Would people stop doing the things that we associate with fulfilling marriages?
Does the government policy of providing Social Security benefits to 65 year old spouses who would not otherwise qualify, weigh on the decision of a couple in their 20s to marry?
Are the bundle of default marriage laws, such as spousal inheritance, superior to specific legal documents such as wills?
What percentage of married couples have a critical need for the government financial perks given to couples with government marriage licenses?
What is the governments definition of marriage? Not who can get married , but what marriage itself is? How can the government accuse the marriage of a Russian woman to a US citizen for the purpose of coming to the United States as being a sham? What about the brief Las Vegas marriage of Britney Spears?
What vows of love do government marriage licenses require?
Do marriage laws prevent multiple sex partners, disease, incest, or statutory rape?
Should there be separation of church and state?
Should single people get equal government benefits?
How many times have you had to show your government marriage certificate?
Shades of G.K. Chesterton in your satire.
Compare this quote from The Man Who Was Thursday:
"We say that the dangerous criminal is the educated criminal. We say that the most dangerous criminal now is the entirely lawless modern philosopher. Compared to him, burglars and bigamists are essentially moral men; my heart goes out to them. They accept the essential ideal of man; they merely seek it wrongly. Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fulness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives. But philosophers hate life itself, their own as much as other people's."