Can Gay Marriage be next?

14,886 Views | 241 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by dude95
Change Detection
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BallerStaf2003 said:

Charles Coghlan said:

BallerStaf2003 said:

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT
I dont want to face the wrath of god for the Sodom and Gormah society we have now do you?


How self righteous of you. I cam see this is truly a genuine concern and not driven by republican talking points or homophobia.
He is trying to be righteous, but all means lets make him look evil, like the left always does.
Silian Rail
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Touchless said:

Silian Rail said:

Tex117 said:

Touchless said:

I see gay marriage as more of a separation of church and state issue. The government can't force a church to recognize, accept or wed a gay couple, but they have to recognize it legally between two consenting adults.
A true "conservative" point of view.


This is an extremely liberal point of view, it's the sort of view our liberal forefathers would have retched hearing while they were penning laws prescribing castration for homosexuality.
Calling my point of view "extremely liberal".
The idea that the government has to recognize a marriage between gay or related adults because "small government" is extremely liberal. Sorry. Next time don't get your definition of conservatism from libertarians.
Old McDonald
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Silian Rail said:

The force of government gives teeth to their fable and allows it to be used as a weapon against the sane, all for the same goal, the destruction of the family, which in turn destabilizes society.
moral panic drivel from a shrinking minority lashing out against a society that has rejected its bigotry.
Silian Rail
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Old McDonald said:

Silian Rail said:

The force of government gives teeth to their fable and allows it to be used as a weapon against the sane, all for the same goal, the destruction of the family, which in turn destabilizes society.
moral panic drivel from a shrinking minority lashing out against a society that has rejected its bigotry.
Sure thing pal, that's what they said about Roe v Wade. I'm pretty comfy here on the same side as Clarence Thomas, but what does he know?.
BallerStaf2003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Kvetch said:

Dang, man. You didn't have to murder him like that. He was already dead.


Honestly you've been kicked in more than anyone on this thread.
Silian Rail
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I now know there are 6 or maybe 7 gay people who peruse the Texags politics board.
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
blakegrimez said:

IMO marriage should just be a social construct. You want to pronounce your love for someone in the eyes of your lord? Go ahead. It's weird to me that there's so much more tied into it.


Don't men have a responsibility to their wife and family? How do you dole that out? How does the government understand ownership of property? Could you just abandon your family, take all your family's belongings and start a new life with another "family"?

If you want to abandon the notion of marriage and the western nuclear family, then you need to replace it with something. What does that look like? Just every man and woman for themselves?
Touchless
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agdad4x
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was having lunch with a long time client of mine and he mentioned that his oldest son was getting married - I have known this client for years and remember when his son was born (late 20s now). I asked if the son met his bride in school or through their business and he said that the son had never seen the girl and that the marriage was arranged through her parents and my client and his wife -after i picked myself up off the floor, I asked him how his business was doing because I damn sure did not know what else to say.

Kvetch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BallerStaf2003 said:

Kvetch said:

Dang, man. You didn't have to murder him like that. He was already dead.


Honestly you've been kicked in more than anyone on this thread.


Guess it depends on who you ask.
Old McDonald
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Silian Rail said:

I now know there are 6 or maybe 7 gay people who peruse the Texags politics board.
sorry there are people in your safe space who agree your posts are nonsense
Kvetch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Define marriage.
Silian Rail
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Old McDonald said:

Silian Rail said:

I now know there are 6 or maybe 7 gay people who peruse the Texags politics board.
sorry there are people in your safe space who agree your posts are nonsense


My posts are extremely coherent and logical, the idea that consenting adults can do whatever they want to is a hallmark of liberalism not conservatism. A liberalism so beyond the pale even our extremely liberal founding fathers wouldn't have been able to fathom it.
Kvetch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Libertinism. But when you're a relativist, you don't have the moral authority to condemn anything. Hence why they just revert back to name calling instead of making substantive arguments.
#1 Jaylen Henderson Fan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yes, but also no. I'm more inclined to believe that those decisions should be made by the couple when they get married.

I don't like other people making decisions for me, and politics has become so confusing that I don't even know if that's a conservative view anymore.

I support gay marriage, and abortion for that matter, not for any constitutional reason, but because I simply don't believe that a governing party should be able to tell me what I can and can't do with my body.

This is where I've become conflicted in my beliefs. I've always believed in small government, but lately everything the republican party has pushed for is allowing the government to have more control over people.
Goro Majima
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gay marriage and abortion aren't even comparable.

I don't know what the problem with gay marriage is as long as it's kept in the civil courts.
AggieUSMC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Obergefell, Griswold, Loving, or Lawrence aren't going anywhere in any of our lifetimes if ever at all. There just simply is not support on the current court to touch any of those cases with a ten foot poll and there likely will never be. Nor is there enough support in the public to even bring a challenge to those cases.
JamesBREI06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silian Rail said:

BallerStaf2003 said:

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT
just members of the same sex, like it has been for 99% of the country's history.


Cocaine was given to child when the country was founded. Things change.
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
blakegrimez said:

Yes, but also no. I'm more inclined to believe that those decisions should be made by the couple when they get married.




I'm talking about when a couple inevitably ends up in court. Who gets what? Should the husband have to continue to support his wife and children financially? Who gets the house? Who gets the car? Everything that was a product of the marriage. Children?

If we don't acknowledge marriage is anything more than a social construct, then there are no rules. It has no definition. There could not be a Just outcome. Justice in and of itself becomes a social construct.
JamesBREI06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
_mpaul said:

1939 said:

No, not even close to the same thing, but that will be the dems new talking point.
It's actually very close to the same thing. The Court created a constitutional right out of thin air in contradiction to 200 years of how they decided similar cases.

I don't give a crap one way or the other about the underlying issue, but decisions Roe and Obergefell damage our system of government. It is the real "damage to democracy" that the left is always whining about.


Why do we need laws to legalize it? It should be automatically legal.
#1 Jaylen Henderson Fan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's a civil issue, which is currently where divorce settlements are settled.

Again, if the couple decides those things when they get married, then it's still a civil issue without the government dictating it.
TXAGBQ76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not in now, nor have any plans to be in a same sex marriage so I'm ok with God on that one.
"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone" comes to mind.
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
blakegrimez said:

That's a civil issue, which is currently where divorce settlements are settled.

Again, if the couple decides those things when they get married, then it's still a civil issue without the government dictating it.



This is a recipe for disaster
J. Walter Weatherman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bob Lee said:

blakegrimez said:

Yes, but also no. I'm more inclined to believe that those decisions should be made by the couple when they get married.




I'm talking about when a couple inevitably ends up in court. Who gets what? Should the husband have to continue to support his wife and children financially? Who gets the house? Who gets the car? Everything that was a product of the marriage. Children?

If we don't acknowledge marriage is anything more than a social construct, then there are no rules. It has no definition. There could not be a Just outcome. Justice in and of itself becomes a social construct.


Why do you care? How does something like this impact your daily life in any way? Texags "conservatives" strike again.
Silian Rail
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Because you guys don't stop until it impacts our daily lives
Ags2013
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This thread is classic F16
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
J. Walter Weatherman said:

Bob Lee said:

blakegrimez said:

Yes, but also no. I'm more inclined to believe that those decisions should be made by the couple when they get married.




I'm talking about when a couple inevitably ends up in court. Who gets what? Should the husband have to continue to support his wife and children financially? Who gets the house? Who gets the car? Everything that was a product of the marriage. Children?

If we don't acknowledge marriage is anything more than a social construct, then there are no rules. It has no definition. There could not be a Just outcome. Justice in and of itself becomes a social construct.


Why do you care? How does something like this impact your daily life in any way? Texags "conservatives" strike again.


I didn't used to care at all, until y'all started grooming children and kidnapping them from the ones of us who don't play ball. I care about Truth. I care about Justice. I worry about living in a society of people that has come completely unmoored. Why don't you care?
J. Walter Weatherman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Silian Rail said:

Because you guys don't stop until it impacts our daily lives


Have no idea who the "you guys" is referencing here but there's a giant gap between two people you'll never meet getting married and living out their lives (no impact on anyone) and the drag shows, grooming, etc that is 100% wrong, has a huge impact on people and society and should be stopped.
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
J. Walter Weatherman said:

Silian Rail said:

Because you guys don't stop until it impacts our daily lives


Have no idea who the "you guys" is referencing here but there's a giant gap between two people you'll never meet getting married and living out their lives (no impact on anyone) and the drag shows, grooming, etc that is 100% wrong, has a huge impact on people and society and should be stopped.


No there isn't. One of them begets the other, and you can't point to any objective morality that justifies one, but not the other.
J. Walter Weatherman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bob Lee said:

J. Walter Weatherman said:

Silian Rail said:

Because you guys don't stop until it impacts our daily lives


Have no idea who the "you guys" is referencing here but there's a giant gap between two people you'll never meet getting married and living out their lives (no impact on anyone) and the drag shows, grooming, etc that is 100% wrong, has a huge impact on people and society and should be stopped.


No there isn't. One of them begets the other, and you can't point to any objective morality that justifies one, but not the other.


Do you think a random, traditional married couple living in Arizona "begets" a random man sexually assaulting a woman in New York? Of course not, the two are completely unrelated situations and have nothing to do with eachother.
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
J. Walter Weatherman said:

Bob Lee said:

J. Walter Weatherman said:

Silian Rail said:

Because you guys don't stop until it impacts our daily lives


Have no idea who the "you guys" is referencing here but there's a giant gap between two people you'll never meet getting married and living out their lives (no impact on anyone) and the drag shows, grooming, etc that is 100% wrong, has a huge impact on people and society and should be stopped.


No there isn't. One of them begets the other, and you can't point to any objective morality that justifies one, but not the other.


Do you think a random, traditional married couple living in Arizona "begets" a random man sexually assaulting a woman in New York? Of course not, the two are completely unrelated situations and have nothing to do with eachother.


No, and the philosophy that underlies my Christian worldview could not also be used to justify the latter.
Silian Rail
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J. Walter Weatherman said:

Silian Rail said:

Because you guys don't stop until it impacts our daily lives


Have no idea who the "you guys" is referencing here but there's a giant gap between two people you'll never meet getting married and living out their lives (no impact on anyone) and the drag shows, grooming, etc that is 100% wrong, has a huge impact on people and society and should be stopped.


Two points make a line, they're the fruit of the same poisoned tree; one is just further down the slippery slope
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Silian Rail said:

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

I never said being in love was a pre-req.

Explain why you care if homosexuals can legally get married? What is the real issue for you?
For the same reason I care about humoring men who think they're women; it's not true. The force of government gives teeth to their fable and allows it to be used as a weapon against the sane, all for the same goal, the destruction of the family, which in turn destabilizes society.

Society cares about labels and institutions, you only need to look around and see the hilarious new terms "birthing people" and "menstruating people" to see that. The easiest way to legitimize some new form of creeping leftism is to dress it up in the skin suit of a respectable institution.

So again, why can't brother and sister get married.


They can't get married because it's against the law. Why is that your go to?

If society likes labels, then it's allowed to change what those labels are. Gay marriage has no impact on you or your life. Gay marriage isn't the cause of those phrases that you quoted and gay marriage can exist without those terms being accepted by most of society.

It appears you believe this is an either/or argument and it's not. You just want to imply your definition of marriage on other people because you believe your view is the correct on. Arrogance and definitely not a conservative point of view. You just want control over other people's lives.
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
Silian Rail
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

Silian Rail said:

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

I never said being in love was a pre-req.

Explain why you care if homosexuals can legally get married? What is the real issue for you?
For the same reason I care about humoring men who think they're women; it's not true. The force of government gives teeth to their fable and allows it to be used as a weapon against the sane, all for the same goal, the destruction of the family, which in turn destabilizes society.

Society cares about labels and institutions, you only need to look around and see the hilarious new terms "birthing people" and "menstruating people" to see that. The easiest way to legitimize some new form of creeping leftism is to dress it up in the skin suit of a respectable institution.

So again, why can't brother and sister get married.


They can't get married because it's against the law. Why is that your go to?

If society likes labels, then it's allowed to change what those labels are. Gay marriage has no impact on you or your life. Gay marriage isn't the cause of those phrases that you quoted and gay marriage can exist without those terms being accepted by most of society.

It appears you believe this is an either/or argument and it's not. You just want to imply your definition of marriage on other people because you believe your view is the correct on. Arrogance and definitely not a conservative point of view. You just want control over other people's lives.


I know it's against the law, why is it against the law, they love each other, and that's all that matters right? That they're consenting adults, and they love each other.

Why let gay people marry and not brother and sister? Do you want to control their lives?

If my view isn't conservative, why was it shared by Scalia, Alito and Clarence Thomas?
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Silian Rail said:

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

Silian Rail said:

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

I never said being in love was a pre-req.

Explain why you care if homosexuals can legally get married? What is the real issue for you?
For the same reason I care about humoring men who think they're women; it's not true. The force of government gives teeth to their fable and allows it to be used as a weapon against the sane, all for the same goal, the destruction of the family, which in turn destabilizes society.

Society cares about labels and institutions, you only need to look around and see the hilarious new terms "birthing people" and "menstruating people" to see that. The easiest way to legitimize some new form of creeping leftism is to dress it up in the skin suit of a respectable institution.

So again, why can't brother and sister get married.


They can't get married because it's against the law. Why is that your go to?

If society likes labels, then it's allowed to change what those labels are. Gay marriage has no impact on you or your life. Gay marriage isn't the cause of those phrases that you quoted and gay marriage can exist without those terms being accepted by most of society.

It appears you believe this is an either/or argument and it's not. You just want to imply your definition of marriage on other people because you believe your view is the correct on. Arrogance and definitely not a conservative point of view. You just want control over other people's lives.


I know it's against the law, why is it against the law, they love each other, and that's all that matters right? That they're consenting adults, and they love each other.

Why let gay people marry and not brother and sister? Do you want to control their lives?

If my view isn't conservative, why was it shared by Scalia, Alito and Clarence Thomas?


I have no idea because I don't care. Should I care? You tell me why they can't get married.

A conservative doesn't use the government to implement their religious beliefs on other people, which is what you are bragging about on another thread.
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.