Gay Marriage - You Are All Wrong

The point is made that no matter which arguement you are in favor of, we all ultimately loose in the end unless a fundamental change in our view of government takes place.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• conservative
• liberal
• gay
• marriage
• libertarian
• carrie
• prejean
• prop
• proposition
• constitution
• legal
• perez

[CrisVangel]

This is mostly true but the part where you speak of forcing people to obey the law ie. marry gay people when you are personally opposed to gay marriage, .. hmm, think about the bus driver's back in the 60's who didn't want to allow people of color the right to ride in the front of the bus.. should he be fired because he doesn't agree with the law (and keep racism alive)? Hell yes!! Same thing here. Just because everyone thinks it's ok to treat people unfairly doesn't make it right!

[mnemeth1]

You're taking my comments out of context. With a constitutional amendment, its entirely possible to create a situation where churches could be mandated to recognize and perform such marriages. It is a hypothetical used as an example.

[pkiverson]

I would agree with you that the tax breaks, ss survivor benefits, etc. are not a necessity. But there are many many rights and benefits to marriage that are important, and eliminating marriage altogether is not the right way to go.

Baptism is a complete red herring, since what we are really dealing with is a civil contract to begin with. It has nothing to do with religion, despite the word being the same.

[pkiverson]

I think you fail to recognize that, in the eyes of the law, marriage IS already a civil contract. It has nothing to do with religion. You can be married in church without getting a marriage certificate. Or you can get a marriage certificate without involving any church. They're completely separate entities. It would NOT be tyranny to simply legalize gay marriage because all the protections granted by the first amendment to religion would still hold.

[whisperingfox]

If the problem is that banning gay marriage prevents the rights of gay people, but allowing gay marriage prevents the rights of the religious leaders who carry out marriage, then surely the soultion is to allow gay marriage to be performed by the religious bodies that wish to perform it, and to accept the refusal of those that dont. That way seems the most fair. Besides, a religious ceremony of any kind means nothing if its forced and not carried out with open hearted intention

[sallybaker1950]

Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam only believe in traditional marrage.

If a religious exemption is placed in a law creating gay marrage, the first thing the radicals will do is challenge the exemption in court. The exemption could be eliminated by one gay judge. Then any Church that even preach the benefits of traditional marrage would be charged with discrimination.

It would be best to return to the Constitution and get out of the marriage and descrimination rackets. Please thumbs up.

[lightandbeautiful]

Homosexual activists understand the power of words.

Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which famous atheist Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".

The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationsh­ip being discussed.

The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.

[kdc43]

God does not show favoritism, There's srt8t marriage so there got to be gay marriage.

[geeflyboy]

Libertarian propaganda sounds reasonable and rational. However they never explain all the details, and when you take Libertarianism to it's logical conclusion, you have the wild wild west with no laws, no Gov no leadership. IT'S JUST BS!

Up till now EVERYONE was happy with marriage, laws that controlled inheritance, tax, children welfare. None of it perfect or always good, but it's better than NOTHING, which is what you propose? JUST SAY NO TO GAYS. THEY REALLY DON'T WANT TO BE MARRIED.

[geeflyboy]

There's no Gay DNA/Brain, it's a preference, an urge. If gays want to live together, fine! If they want legal contracts, living wills, power of attorney, fine. The only issue is TAX. Fix the tax code, no marriage/kid deductions. Pvt business can make "partner benefits" their choice. The Libertarian abandoned Gov is DUMB! Marriage=Man+Woman+kids, worked for 1000's of yrs. Gays can't have kids, therefore inferior to heterosexuality, less important to society. They can have unions now in 5 states!

[geeflyboy]

Typical illogical Libertarian, no Gov, dissolve marriage, Gay or Christian, no legal Gov recognition? Lets not worry about inheritance, land, children welfare. Everyone live together. If you want to get a lawyer, draw up legal contracts, wills, power of attorney OK. Have kids name them as you will; heck why even get a birth certificate? More Gov? Gays can do what they want? IDIOTIC. Gov is in our life. You don't abandoned it you make it work for the people. Just say NO to the gays, it's an urge!

[geeflyboy]

You were doing great til Min 2 and you said I PERSONALLY THINK. Well you're clearly a minority. People say they are OK with SS marriage, but in the ballot box they vote YUCK, NO, to gay marriage. I do not want to explain to my kids why their male teacher has a husband they saw making out in the parking lot. IF IT IS JUST THE RIGHTS GAYS WANT, THEN STOP ASKING FOR "MARRIAGE", how about SS CIVIL UNIONS? RIGHT? No? Because the agenda is attack Judeo-Christian traditional values and make GAY NORMAL.

[alx64uzumaki]

@StephenNguyen Why should they hide it if they don't want to?

[donovanrules123123]

Ask yourself. Who prevails? Should it be God's law, or the law created by the people? The answer is clear to me.