Gay Marriage and the Curse of Rumpelstiltskin

Homosexuality , and other perversions did accellerate the decline of the Roman empire.
Weather it took 300 years or less , the decline was due to a breakdown in morals, and societal
deviances.

Soooooo....even if it took 300 years Homosexuality caused the collapse of the Roman Empire. Some logic

The Roman Empire collapsed immediately after the conversion to Christianity

A timeline of the Roman empire

Lets look at the numbers

40 AD Caligula emperor of Rome
380 AD Christianity proclaimed sole religion
406 AD Barbarians invade from the north

Are you talking about two different parts of the same breakdown process? The breakdown of people's morals and corruption of govt would cause the internal loss of integrity within.
The conversion to Christianity would be to take over the fallen system and replace it.

So wouldn't it make sense that the formal fall of the structures of society/govt FOLLOW and REFLECT the breakdown of the internal mores and relations among the people in that society.

We are talking about simplistic, partisan explanations for the fall of the Roman Empire to support a 21st century political agenda

The Romans had what we would call loose sexual morals for 1000 years. To claim that lots of sex caused the collapse is ridiculous

Just like my claim that Christianity caused it. But at least mine is closer to the actual collapse
 
What you conveniently ignore is that gay marriage is not about gay sex but about two people of the same sex who happen to love earch other and want to care for each other

There is both the issue of what people PERSONALLY feel/believe about gays and marriage.
AND the issue of how to make a state policy that is fair to both views.

The problem is that those who want gay marriage recognize they are being excluded.
But how many recognize that imposing this infringes on those who don't believe in public sanctioning of gay marriage, and thus causing equal discrimination! (and similar with passing legislation that negates or excludes pro-life views which are equally protected under law as pro-choice views)

Either laws should be written that exclude/discriminate against NEITHER
or the states should stay out of these personal matters, and let churches decide them independently. The States can recognize civil unions and contracts, and let the churches or private citizens handle marriage any way they believe where it doesn't infringe on others.

And the only way States can be involved in marriage is if people IN THAT STATE agree to compromise; if they don't agree, the State cannot constitutionally impose in a religious matter so it should be left to the people. The State can reflect a consensus of the people's beliefs but can't impose a religious opinion one way or the other on dissenting citizens.

I agree with this. What some people do not realize is that to alot of Christians marriage is a Religious ceremony not a civil one. Which is why I am for 2 different ceremonies. One is marriage performed in a church which would be totally left to the churches and would get you no rights from the government. The second would be the civil ceremony done at the court house and would be the only one recognized by the Government and would be open to every couple, Gay or Straight. Any couple wanting to file a joint return, get family insurance and what not would have to go to the court house and have the civil ceremony done.
 
What you conveniently ignore is that gay marriage is not about gay sex but about two people of the same sex who happen to love earch other and want to care for each other

There is both the issue of what people PERSONALLY feel/believe about gays and marriage.
AND the issue of how to make a state policy that is fair to both views.

The problem is that those who want gay marriage recognize they are being excluded.
But how many recognize that imposing this infringes on those who don't believe in public sanctioning of gay marriage, and thus causing equal discrimination! (and similar with passing legislation that negates or excludes pro-life views which are equally protected under law as pro-choice views)

Either laws should be written that exclude/discriminate against NEITHER
or the states should stay out of these personal matters, and let churches decide them independently. The States can recognize civil unions and contracts, and let the churches or private citizens handle marriage any way they believe where it doesn't infringe on others.

And the only way States can be involved in marriage is if people IN THAT STATE agree to compromise; if they don't agree, the State cannot constitutionally impose in a religious matter so it should be left to the people. The State can reflect a consensus of the people's beliefs but can't impose a religious opinion one way or the other on dissenting citizens.

I agree with this. What some people do not realize is that to alot of Christians marriage is a Religious ceremony not a civil one. Which is why I am for 2 different ceremonies. One is marriage performed in a church which would be totally left to the churches and would get you no rights from the government. The second would be the civil ceremony done at the court house and would be the only one recognized by the Government and would be open to every couple, Gay or Straight. Any couple wanting to file a joint return, get family insurance and what not would have to go to the court house and have the civil ceremony done.

This is a measured and reasonable tangent. However, as usual, you have the far right and left clashing on an issue where most moderate Americans probably don't care and will simply go about their lives as they have for the last 250 years. To those who feel that this is a Christian nation and refuse to believe that it is anything but will never budge because their beliefs tell them that a Christian nation means Christian-inspired laws and such a thing should never be recognized or sanctioned. To the gays who want to get married, they simply see it as an institution from which they have been excluded and want to be included.

My life will go on either way. My issues with the religious right are what they are and will continue to be so, but I continue to embrace them as fellow Americans by that same token, as I always have. My issues with the LGBT community over this issue is simply their failure to understand and recognize that marriage is an institution and a tradition that means a certain thing, and that they are endeavoring to change it. They say they aren't trying to change it, but they are. Inclusion of a group to any institution that has traditionally represented a specific identity always changes it. So, it should come as no shock that there is resistance, or that they can be seen in any other way than trying to shoehorn their way into an institution that has traditionally not been for them.
 
There is both the issue of what people PERSONALLY feel/believe about gays and marriage.
AND the issue of how to make a state policy that is fair to both views.

The problem is that those who want gay marriage recognize they are being excluded.
But how many recognize that imposing this infringes on those who don't believe in public sanctioning of gay marriage, and thus causing equal discrimination! (and similar with passing legislation that negates or excludes pro-life views which are equally protected under law as pro-choice views)

Either laws should be written that exclude/discriminate against NEITHER
or the states should stay out of these personal matters, and let churches decide them independently. The States can recognize civil unions and contracts, and let the churches or private citizens handle marriage any way they believe where it doesn't infringe on others.

And the only way States can be involved in marriage is if people IN THAT STATE agree to compromise; if they don't agree, the State cannot constitutionally impose in a religious matter so it should be left to the people. The State can reflect a consensus of the people's beliefs but can't impose a religious opinion one way or the other on dissenting citizens.

I agree with this. What some people do not realize is that to alot of Christians marriage is a Religious ceremony not a civil one. Which is why I am for 2 different ceremonies. One is marriage performed in a church which would be totally left to the churches and would get you no rights from the government. The second would be the civil ceremony done at the court house and would be the only one recognized by the Government and would be open to every couple, Gay or Straight. Any couple wanting to file a joint return, get family insurance and what not would have to go to the court house and have the civil ceremony done.

This is a measured and reasonable tangent. However, as usual, you have the far right and left clashing on an issue where most moderate Americans probably don't care and will simply go about their lives as they have for the last 250 years. To those who feel that this is a Christian nation and refuse to believe that it is anything but will never budge because their beliefs tell them that a Christian nation means Christian-inspired laws and such a thing should never be recognized or sanctioned. To the gays who want to get married, they simply see it as an institution from which they have been excluded and want to be included.

My life will go on either way. My issues with the religious right are what they are and will continue to be so, but I continue to embrace them as fellow Americans by that same token, as I always have. My issues with the LGBT community over this issue is simply their failure to understand and recognize that marriage is an institution and a tradition that means a certain thing, and that they are endeavoring to change it. They say they aren't trying to change it, but they are. Inclusion of a group to any institution that has traditionally represented a specific identity always changes it. So, it should come as no shock that there is resistance, or that they can be seen in any other way than trying to shoehorn their way into an institution that has traditionally not been for them.

So, because we have always been biased against gays, they should accept it because it is a tradition?
 
What you conveniently ignore is that gay marriage is not about gay sex but about two people of the same sex who happen to love earch other and want to care for each other

There is both the issue of what people PERSONALLY feel/believe about gays and marriage.
AND the issue of how to make a state policy that is fair to both views.

The problem is that those who want gay marriage recognize they are being excluded.
But how many recognize that imposing this infringes on those who don't believe in public sanctioning of gay marriage, and thus causing equal discrimination! (and similar with passing legislation that negates or excludes pro-life views which are equally protected under law as pro-choice views)

Either laws should be written that exclude/discriminate against NEITHER
or the states should stay out of these personal matters, and let churches decide them independently. The States can recognize civil unions and contracts, and let the churches or private citizens handle marriage any way they believe where it doesn't infringe on others.

And the only way States can be involved in marriage is if people IN THAT STATE agree to compromise; if they don't agree, the State cannot constitutionally impose in a religious matter so it should be left to the people. The State can reflect a consensus of the people's beliefs but can't impose a religious opinion one way or the other on dissenting citizens.

I agree with this. What some people do not realize is that to alot of Christians marriage is a Religious ceremony not a civil one. Which is why I am for 2 different ceremonies. One is marriage performed in a church which would be totally left to the churches and would get you no rights from the government. The second would be the civil ceremony done at the court house and would be the only one recognized by the Government and would be open to every couple, Gay or Straight. Any couple wanting to file a joint return, get family insurance and what not would have to go to the court house and have the civil ceremony done.

Not sure what is meant by ‘a lot,’ but Christian clergy are authorized by the state to administer marriage in a civil context, as if one were married by a justice of the peace.

Same-sex couples may marry via either means, by a member of the clergy or by a civil servant.

Otherwise it’s still marriage, the same law applied to opposite-sex couples, as written and recognized by the state.

And of course religious entities who wish not to accommodate same-sex couples will not be required to do so.
 
There is both the issue of what people PERSONALLY feel/believe about gays and marriage.
AND the issue of how to make a state policy that is fair to both views.

The problem is that those who want gay marriage recognize they are being excluded.
But how many recognize that imposing this infringes on those who don't believe in public sanctioning of gay marriage, and thus causing equal discrimination! (and similar with passing legislation that negates or excludes pro-life views which are equally protected under law as pro-choice views)

Either laws should be written that exclude/discriminate against NEITHER
or the states should stay out of these personal matters, and let churches decide them independently. The States can recognize civil unions and contracts, and let the churches or private citizens handle marriage any way they believe where it doesn't infringe on others.

And the only way States can be involved in marriage is if people IN THAT STATE agree to compromise; if they don't agree, the State cannot constitutionally impose in a religious matter so it should be left to the people. The State can reflect a consensus of the people's beliefs but can't impose a religious opinion one way or the other on dissenting citizens.

I agree with this. What some people do not realize is that to alot of Christians marriage is a Religious ceremony not a civil one. Which is why I am for 2 different ceremonies. One is marriage performed in a church which would be totally left to the churches and would get you no rights from the government. The second would be the civil ceremony done at the court house and would be the only one recognized by the Government and would be open to every couple, Gay or Straight. Any couple wanting to file a joint return, get family insurance and what not would have to go to the court house and have the civil ceremony done.

This is a measured and reasonable tangent. However, as usual, you have the far right and left clashing on an issue where most moderate Americans probably don't care and will simply go about their lives as they have for the last 250 years. To those who feel that this is a Christian nation and refuse to believe that it is anything but will never budge because their beliefs tell them that a Christian nation means Christian-inspired laws and such a thing should never be recognized or sanctioned. To the gays who want to get married, they simply see it as an institution from which they have been excluded and want to be included.

My life will go on either way. My issues with the religious right are what they are and will continue to be so, but I continue to embrace them as fellow Americans by that same token, as I always have. My issues with the LGBT community over this issue is simply their failure to understand and recognize that marriage is an institution and a tradition that means a certain thing, and that they are endeavoring to change it. They say they aren't trying to change it, but they are. Inclusion of a group to any institution that has traditionally represented a specific identity always changes it. So, it should come as no shock that there is resistance, or that they can be seen in any other way than trying to shoehorn their way into an institution that has traditionally not been for them.

Actually not.

Same-sex couples have no desire to change marriage; they simply wish to have access to marriage law as it exists now, as afforded them by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Since no state recognizes the doctrine of coverture, marriage has been gender-neutral for over a generation; marriage law concerns only two individuals entering into a marriage contract, that the two individuals are of the same sex is irrelevant, and changes marriage in no way.
 
I agree with this. What some people do not realize is that to alot of Christians marriage is a Religious ceremony not a civil one. Which is why I am for 2 different ceremonies. One is marriage performed in a church which would be totally left to the churches and would get you no rights from the government. The second would be the civil ceremony done at the court house and would be the only one recognized by the Government and would be open to every couple, Gay or Straight. Any couple wanting to file a joint return, get family insurance and what not would have to go to the court house and have the civil ceremony done.

This is a measured and reasonable tangent. However, as usual, you have the far right and left clashing on an issue where most moderate Americans probably don't care and will simply go about their lives as they have for the last 250 years. To those who feel that this is a Christian nation and refuse to believe that it is anything but will never budge because their beliefs tell them that a Christian nation means Christian-inspired laws and such a thing should never be recognized or sanctioned. To the gays who want to get married, they simply see it as an institution from which they have been excluded and want to be included.

My life will go on either way. My issues with the religious right are what they are and will continue to be so, but I continue to embrace them as fellow Americans by that same token, as I always have. My issues with the LGBT community over this issue is simply their failure to understand and recognize that marriage is an institution and a tradition that means a certain thing, and that they are endeavoring to change it. They say they aren't trying to change it, but they are. Inclusion of a group to any institution that has traditionally represented a specific identity always changes it. So, it should come as no shock that there is resistance, or that they can be seen in any other way than trying to shoehorn their way into an institution that has traditionally not been for them.

So, because we have always been biased against gays, they should accept it because it is a tradition?

I leave that up to personal opinion. I don't care whether or not gays accept the tradition for what it is or they don't. I have nothing for or against gays. But to be ignorant of what the tradition has meant is, well, ignorant. It would be like a man insisting to be allowed to dance at a gentleman's club and wondering why nobody wants him to. Should gays be allowed to form civil unions? I don't see why not, but in the end I really don't care. Gays want in on an institution that has traditionally excluded them, and not just by white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans, but on a very broad, even anthropological level. If gays want to change that, then they should at least start by being honest that they want to change it. I've seen posts by those that say they don't want to change anything, they just want to be included. Well, I'm sorry, but by being included, it is being changed. That's not even a matter of opinion. The questions of whether or not the institution SHOULD change is going to come down to which group is being asked.
 
This is a measured and reasonable tangent. However, as usual, you have the far right and left clashing on an issue where most moderate Americans probably don't care and will simply go about their lives as they have for the last 250 years. To those who feel that this is a Christian nation and refuse to believe that it is anything but will never budge because their beliefs tell them that a Christian nation means Christian-inspired laws and such a thing should never be recognized or sanctioned. To the gays who want to get married, they simply see it as an institution from which they have been excluded and want to be included.

My life will go on either way. My issues with the religious right are what they are and will continue to be so, but I continue to embrace them as fellow Americans by that same token, as I always have. My issues with the LGBT community over this issue is simply their failure to understand and recognize that marriage is an institution and a tradition that means a certain thing, and that they are endeavoring to change it. They say they aren't trying to change it, but they are. Inclusion of a group to any institution that has traditionally represented a specific identity always changes it. So, it should come as no shock that there is resistance, or that they can be seen in any other way than trying to shoehorn their way into an institution that has traditionally not been for them.

So, because we have always been biased against gays, they should accept it because it is a tradition?

I leave that up to personal opinion. I don't care whether or not gays accept the tradition for what it is or they don't. I have nothing for or against gays. But to be ignorant of what the tradition has meant is, well, ignorant. It would be like a man insisting to be allowed to dance at a gentleman's club and wondering why nobody wants him to. Should gays be allowed to form civil unions? I don't see why not, but in the end I really don't care. Gays want in on an institution that has traditionally excluded them, and not just by white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans, but on a very broad, even anthropological level. If gays want to change that, then they should at least start by being honest that they want to change it. I've seen posts by those that say they don't want to change anything, they just want to be included. Well, I'm sorry, but by being included, it is being changed. That's not even a matter of opinion. The questions of whether or not the institution SHOULD change is going to come down to which group is being asked.

The government shouldnt care

Just because bias was traditionally accepted is no reason for the government to do so. We once had a tradition that blacks and whites couldn't marry. Didn't make it right
 
So, because we have always been biased against gays, they should accept it because it is a tradition?

I leave that up to personal opinion. I don't care whether or not gays accept the tradition for what it is or they don't. I have nothing for or against gays. But to be ignorant of what the tradition has meant is, well, ignorant. It would be like a man insisting to be allowed to dance at a gentleman's club and wondering why nobody wants him to. Should gays be allowed to form civil unions? I don't see why not, but in the end I really don't care. Gays want in on an institution that has traditionally excluded them, and not just by white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans, but on a very broad, even anthropological level. If gays want to change that, then they should at least start by being honest that they want to change it. I've seen posts by those that say they don't want to change anything, they just want to be included. Well, I'm sorry, but by being included, it is being changed. That's not even a matter of opinion. The questions of whether or not the institution SHOULD change is going to come down to which group is being asked.

The government shouldnt care

Just because bias was traditionally accepted is no reason for the government to do so. We once had a tradition that blacks and whites couldn't marry. Didn't make it right

Your comparison doesn't make same-sex marriage right either, nor is the comparison entirely appropriate. Marriage has been a gender binary institution across cultures for millenia. That's not to say my comparison was entirely appropriate either, I was simply pointing out another institution as an example of something that, by including a previously excluded group, changes.

Why shouldn't the government care? They are representing we the people, are they not? The government cares because there are people who care, on both sides of the issue. If marriage is traditionally a certain type of union, and the government is to recognize that union as some sort of contract, then why shouldn't they care? Now, this is not an issue the federal government should get involved in other than to allow states to figure it out. DOMA was not a bad thing, because it allows states that decide not to honor same-sex marriage to not be forced to recognize marriages from states that do. There was nothing wrong with that. It SHOULD be a states issue, and all DOMA did was respect the rights of states whose constituency prefers that same-sex marriage not be recognized. I don't see this as a problem.

My main issue is just with the community that says they are not trying to change anything. Sure they are. Why wouldn't they be?
 
Last edited:
I leave that up to personal opinion. I don't care whether or not gays accept the tradition for what it is or they don't. I have nothing for or against gays. But to be ignorant of what the tradition has meant is, well, ignorant. It would be like a man insisting to be allowed to dance at a gentleman's club and wondering why nobody wants him to. Should gays be allowed to form civil unions? I don't see why not, but in the end I really don't care. Gays want in on an institution that has traditionally excluded them, and not just by white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans, but on a very broad, even anthropological level. If gays want to change that, then they should at least start by being honest that they want to change it. I've seen posts by those that say they don't want to change anything, they just want to be included. Well, I'm sorry, but by being included, it is being changed. That's not even a matter of opinion. The questions of whether or not the institution SHOULD change is going to come down to which group is being asked.

The government shouldnt care

Just because bias was traditionally accepted is no reason for the government to do so. We once had a tradition that blacks and whites couldn't marry. Didn't make it right

Your comparison doesn't make same-sex marriage right either, nor is the comparison entirely appropriate. Marriage has been a gender binary institution across cultures for millenia. That's not to say my comparison was entirely appropriate either, I was simply pointing out another institution as an example of something that, by including a previously excluded group, changes.

Why shouldn't the government care? They are representing we the people, are they not? The government cares because there are people who care, on both sides of the issue. If marriage is traditionally a certain type of union, and the government is to recognize that union as some sort of contract, then why shouldn't they care? Now, this is not an issue the federal government should get involved in other than to allow states to figure it out. DOMA was not a bad thing, because it allows states that decide not to honor same-sex marriage to not be forced to recognize marriages from states that do. There was nothing wrong with that. It SHOULD be a states issue, and all DOMA did was respect the rights of states whose constituency prefers that same-sex marriage not be recognized. I don't see this as a problem.

My main issue is just with the community that says they are not trying to change anything. Sure they are. Why wouldn't they be?

The government should care that people are treated equitably

There are no laws against homosexuality there is no public interest rationale for banning gay marriage
 
If the issue is simply taking advantage of laws, then why can't two same sex friends get married for the benefits. Or even people who don't know each other get married to take advantage of benefits.

I once notarized the Civil Union Partnership of a 45 year old man and a 19 year old boy who was the friend of the man's son, just to take advantage of insurance benefits. The boy brought along his girlfriend. What's wrong with that? Should there be some requirement of being "in love"? Who is going to judge the quality of love?
 
So, because we have always been biased against gays, they should accept it because it is a tradition?

I leave that up to personal opinion. I don't care whether or not gays accept the tradition for what it is or they don't. I have nothing for or against gays. But to be ignorant of what the tradition has meant is, well, ignorant. It would be like a man insisting to be allowed to dance at a gentleman's club and wondering why nobody wants him to. Should gays be allowed to form civil unions? I don't see why not, but in the end I really don't care. Gays want in on an institution that has traditionally excluded them, and not just by white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans, but on a very broad, even anthropological level. If gays want to change that, then they should at least start by being honest that they want to change it. I've seen posts by those that say they don't want to change anything, they just want to be included. Well, I'm sorry, but by being included, it is being changed. That's not even a matter of opinion. The questions of whether or not the institution SHOULD change is going to come down to which group is being asked.

The government shouldnt care

Just because bias was traditionally accepted is no reason for the government to do so. We once had a tradition that blacks and whites couldn't marry. Didn't make it right

Correct.

That a thing is perceived to be ‘traditional’ is legally irrelevant:

Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Thus attempting to deny same-sex couples access to marriage because it ‘violates tradition’ is Constitutionally invalid.
 
If the issue is simply taking advantage of laws, then why can't two same sex friends get married for the benefits. Or even people who don't know each other get married to take advantage of benefits.

I once notarized the Civil Union Partnership of a 45 year old man and a 19 year old boy who was the friend of the man's son, just to take advantage of insurance benefits. The boy brought along his girlfriend. What's wrong with that? Should there be some requirement of being "in love"? Who is going to judge the quality of love?

Can't heterosexual couples do that right now? Where is the part of a marriage license that says the couple is in love?
 
If the issue is simply taking advantage of laws, then why can't two same sex friends get married for the benefits. Or even people who don't know each other get married to take advantage of benefits.

I once notarized the Civil Union Partnership of a 45 year old man and a 19 year old boy who was the friend of the man's son, just to take advantage of insurance benefits. The boy brought along his girlfriend. What's wrong with that? Should there be some requirement of being "in love"? Who is going to judge the quality of love?

That’s not the issue.

At issue is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, where all persons are allowed access to the laws of their state; and the Due Process Clause of the same Amendment, where if a person is to be denied equal access to a given law, there must be a rational basis and justification to do.

Given there is no rational, compelling governmental interest to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, any law prohibiting them from doing so is un-Constitutional.

Needless to say this can all be avoided if the states simply followed the Constitution and afford same-sex couples marriage licenses.
 
I remember how I was. I did not care for blacks, could not stand to see blacks marrying whites and believed gay folks were worse than that.
Thank God for the Marine Colonel who raised me right. We are deep south and I was taught not to hate.
Dad saw the injustice the blacks had when he was on Saipan, Guam and Okinawa WWII.
He saw the injustice gay folks had in NC when he taught there in the 50s and 60s. That carried over to the job he had until his death.
He taught me to always fight for the rights of everyone, even those you may despise the most.
You know, you never really appreciate someone until after they are dead.
Thanks Dad, and Granny Walker! Made a red neck like me live an easier life.

Semper Fi.
 
The government shouldnt care

Just because bias was traditionally accepted is no reason for the government to do so. We once had a tradition that blacks and whites couldn't marry. Didn't make it right

Your comparison doesn't make same-sex marriage right either, nor is the comparison entirely appropriate. Marriage has been a gender binary institution across cultures for millenia. That's not to say my comparison was entirely appropriate either, I was simply pointing out another institution as an example of something that, by including a previously excluded group, changes.

Why shouldn't the government care? They are representing we the people, are they not? The government cares because there are people who care, on both sides of the issue. If marriage is traditionally a certain type of union, and the government is to recognize that union as some sort of contract, then why shouldn't they care? Now, this is not an issue the federal government should get involved in other than to allow states to figure it out. DOMA was not a bad thing, because it allows states that decide not to honor same-sex marriage to not be forced to recognize marriages from states that do. There was nothing wrong with that. It SHOULD be a states issue, and all DOMA did was respect the rights of states whose constituency prefers that same-sex marriage not be recognized. I don't see this as a problem.

My main issue is just with the community that says they are not trying to change anything. Sure they are. Why wouldn't they be?

The government should care that people are treated equitably

There are no laws against homosexuality there is no public interest rationale for banning gay marriage

Again, either way things end up, my life goes on. Whether or not there is a public interest rationale is completely debatable.

Values matter to people, and for some this is a matter of values, and so why it is a more complex issue than you may like it to be. Some would argue that there is an erosion of values, and that these types of "social experiments" are to blame. I think that is far too convenient a scapegoat myself, but I understand the concern. As more and more of the progressive initiatives advocated by the left are coming to fruition, do we see any improvements to society? Are we better off? Some would argue that we are worse off, that society is unraveling because of a departure from the traditional family construct. There are studies that suggest that children of traditional mother/father families tend to fare better than those of single parent or same-sex families, and those that suggest that there is no discernible difference. Let's see, depending on which side of the issue you're one, which studies would you go with? No rocket science there.

My personal belief is that, all things being equal, that a child raised by a mother and father who remain intact and involved in their lives is the best possible situation. That will certainly be preferable to a broken family in any respect, whether same-sex or not. I also happen to believe that a traditional mother/father family is, all things being equal, better for children in terms of gender roles. We can try to engineer society all we want, but boys and girls tend to gravitate to certain roles naturally, that is, they tend to be wired a certain way. So, it is reasonable to argue that a child is, all things being equal, in a better situation where gender roles are clearly defined. Is that always the case? No. Are there fantastic same-sex parents in the world? I have no reason to believe that there are not. Yet, nobody will focus on that. Instead, they will focus on my previous statement and somehow conclude that I am an archaic knuckle-dragger. So be it. I happen to reflect one of the myriad of views held by moderate America for whom this issue is not as cut-and-dry as it appears to be for you far righties and lefties.

My point is that you say that there is no public interest rationale for not recognizing same-sex marriage, while I am saying that to YOU there is no public interest rationale. For those that see marriage as a traditional institution, there is.
 
Last edited:
Your comparison doesn't make same-sex marriage right either, nor is the comparison entirely appropriate. Marriage has been a gender binary institution across cultures for millenia. That's not to say my comparison was entirely appropriate either, I was simply pointing out another institution as an example of something that, by including a previously excluded group, changes.

Why shouldn't the government care? They are representing we the people, are they not? The government cares because there are people who care, on both sides of the issue. If marriage is traditionally a certain type of union, and the government is to recognize that union as some sort of contract, then why shouldn't they care? Now, this is not an issue the federal government should get involved in other than to allow states to figure it out. DOMA was not a bad thing, because it allows states that decide not to honor same-sex marriage to not be forced to recognize marriages from states that do. There was nothing wrong with that. It SHOULD be a states issue, and all DOMA did was respect the rights of states whose constituency prefers that same-sex marriage not be recognized. I don't see this as a problem.

My main issue is just with the community that says they are not trying to change anything. Sure they are. Why wouldn't they be?

The government should care that people are treated equitably

There are no laws against homosexuality there is no public interest rationale for banning gay marriage

Again, either way things end up, my life goes on. Whether or not there is a public interest rationale is completely debatable.

Values matter to people, and for some this is a matter of values, and so why it is a more complex issue than you may like it to be. Some would argue that there is an erosion of values, and that these types of "social experiments" are to blame. I think that is far too convenient a scapegoat myself, but I understand the concern. As more and more of the progressive initiatives advocated by the left are coming to fruition, do we see any improvements to society? Are we better off? Some would argue that we are worse off, that society is unraveling because of a departure from the traditional family construct. There are studies that suggest that children of traditional mother/father families tend to fare better than those of single parent or same-sex families, and those that suggest that there is no discernible difference. Let's see, depending on which side of the issue you're one, which studies would you go with? No rocket science there.

My personal belief is that, all things being equal, that a child raised by a mother and father who remain intact and involved in their lives is the best possible situation. That will certainly be preferable to a broken family in any respect, whether same-sex or not. I also happen to believe that a traditional mother/father family is, all things being equal, better for children in terms of gender roles. We can try to engineer society all we want, but boys and girls tend to gravitate to certain roles naturally, that is, they tend to be wired a certain way. So, it is reasonable to argue that a child is, all things being equal, in a better situation where gender roles are clearly defined. Is that always the case? No. Are there fantastic same-sex parents in the world? I have no reason to believe that there are not. Yet, nobody will focus on that. Instead, they will focus on my previous statement and somehow conclude that I am an archaic knuckle-dragger. So be it. I happen to reflect one of the myriad of views held by moderate America for whom this issue is not as cut-and-dry as it appears to be for you far righties and lefties.

My point is that you say that there is no public interest rationale for not recognizing same-sex marriage, while I am saying that to YOU there is no public interest rationale. For those that see marriage as a traditional institution, there is.

As with ‘tradition,’ whether or not a marriage might produce children is also legally irrelevant in determining who may or may not marry.

The perception that a ‘loss of traditional values’ is somehow contributing to our Nation’s problems is not justification to attempt to drag society back to a mythical American past that never really existed in the first place. Nor is such a fear justification to deny citizens their civil liberties.
 
The government should care that people are treated equitably

There are no laws against homosexuality there is no public interest rationale for banning gay marriage

Again, either way things end up, my life goes on. Whether or not there is a public interest rationale is completely debatable.

Values matter to people, and for some this is a matter of values, and so why it is a more complex issue than you may like it to be. Some would argue that there is an erosion of values, and that these types of "social experiments" are to blame. I think that is far too convenient a scapegoat myself, but I understand the concern. As more and more of the progressive initiatives advocated by the left are coming to fruition, do we see any improvements to society? Are we better off? Some would argue that we are worse off, that society is unraveling because of a departure from the traditional family construct. There are studies that suggest that children of traditional mother/father families tend to fare better than those of single parent or same-sex families, and those that suggest that there is no discernible difference. Let's see, depending on which side of the issue you're one, which studies would you go with? No rocket science there.

My personal belief is that, all things being equal, that a child raised by a mother and father who remain intact and involved in their lives is the best possible situation. That will certainly be preferable to a broken family in any respect, whether same-sex or not. I also happen to believe that a traditional mother/father family is, all things being equal, better for children in terms of gender roles. We can try to engineer society all we want, but boys and girls tend to gravitate to certain roles naturally, that is, they tend to be wired a certain way. So, it is reasonable to argue that a child is, all things being equal, in a better situation where gender roles are clearly defined. Is that always the case? No. Are there fantastic same-sex parents in the world? I have no reason to believe that there are not. Yet, nobody will focus on that. Instead, they will focus on my previous statement and somehow conclude that I am an archaic knuckle-dragger. So be it. I happen to reflect one of the myriad of views held by moderate America for whom this issue is not as cut-and-dry as it appears to be for you far righties and lefties.

My point is that you say that there is no public interest rationale for not recognizing same-sex marriage, while I am saying that to YOU there is no public interest rationale. For those that see marriage as a traditional institution, there is.

As with ‘tradition,’ whether or not a marriage might produce children is also legally irrelevant in determining who may or may not marry.

The perception that a ‘loss of traditional values’ is somehow contributing to our Nation’s problems is not justification to attempt to drag society back to a mythical American past that never really existed in the first place. Nor is such a fear justification to deny citizens their civil liberties.

I'm not saying that it is.

So, a past America where traditional family constructs was the overwhelming norm didn't exist? Since when?
 

Forum List

Back
Top