The Foolishness of Never Trumpers

[Silver Pines]

My ex's uncle and his partner been together 20+ years...same thought on getting "married".

Look if this was strictly about hospital visitations...property ownership...wills...etc..a civil union would do all that.

But we both know that's not what this whole agenda is about and why the push for a "marriage" ina  Church has been so important to the folks pushing the gay agenda. 

They won't ever admit it because at the end of the day for a Liberal...party and politics rule the over personal beliefs and upbringing.

And for a group that continually likes to chant about "stay out of the bedroom"...they sure have no problem bringing what they do in the bedroom out in public and shove it in people's faces and tell them to accept it or else.

@txradioguy

Yep, agree with you completely.  Walking naked down the street in a pride parade isn't really my idea of keeping your practices in the bedroom.  If you bring it out and shove it in my face, you're going to get a reaction.

I can't remember the statistics, but I saw a report that said a small minority of gays actually marry. 

[txradioguy]

Yes, most people were opposed to interracial marriage until the 1990s.  Gay marriage seems to be headed in the same direction, with 40 and 47% of GOP members supporting it in recent polls.  It's just a matter of time before the party platform is changed ... 2024 would be my guess.  That is going to be a nasty fight.

I was a young person during the late 80's early 90's and never knew anyone in my age group that was opposed to interracial marriage much less interracial dating.

Maybe it's where I was raised out in W Texas...but no one I knew had a problem with it.

[Mom MD]

Yes, most people were opposed to interracial marriage until the 1990s.  Gay marriage seems to be headed in the same direction, with 40 and 47% of GOP members supporting it in recent polls.  It's just a matter of time before the party platform is changed ... 2024 would be my guess.  That is going to be a nasty fight.

That will be when any remaining conservatives leave the Republican Party for good

[INVAR]

You are extrapolating, a common tactic here.  Like, if we let gays marry, pretty soon people will be able to marry their dogs.

Indiana Woman Wants to Marry Her Pet Dog – Tries to Rally Support From Gay Rights’ Activists

Woman divorces her husband and marries her dog.

Pandora's box was opened when marriage became a license to fulfill whatever perversion one wanted to be 'married' to.

MAN WHO WANTS TO MARRY COMPUTER SUES KIM DAVIS


That said - what we continue to argue about is the foundational principles that most Americans have absolutely no use for - and consider anyone refusing to surrender those foundational principles to be an enemy of the good or an agent of evil.

Exactly as Jesus said we would be.

[Cripplecreek]

I was a young person during the late 80's early 90's and never knew anyone in my age group that was opposed to interracial marriage much less interracial dating.

Maybe it's where I was raised out in W Texas...but no one I knew had a problem with it.

I was aware of people having a problem with it in the 80s but it wasn't something anyone I knew put a lot of thought into.

[txradioguy]

Frankly, marriage should be separated from the government.  It's a church thing and shouldn't have been crossed over into the civil realm...  Remember, "traditional marriage" can mean merging kingdoms.  It can mean an arranged marriage.  It can mean polygamy.  Etc.

We should do it like Germany, having separate civil bonds.

I'd have no problem with that.


IMO when you go to a JP to get married as opposed to a minister or a priest in a church you're entering into a civil union.

Mine has worked quite well for the last 15 years.

[Silver Pines]

I think you'd find that many young people don't have the slightest hint of that reaction.

One could have said the same about interracial couples.  A large portion of the population had a visceral disgust at the thought, and now that portion is smaller.

@Suppressed

Not the same.   The Bible condemns the latter, strongly and often, but not the former. 

If kids don't have that reaction at all, something's missing.  But I would say that's probably the case with many of them, and it's regrettable. 

[Suppressed]

I was a young person during the late 80's early 90's and never knew anyone in my age group that was opposed to interracial marriage much less interracial dating.

Maybe it's where I was raised out in W Texas...but no one I knew had a problem with it.

Exactly my point.

Yet go back 100 years, and you would have a significant portion of the population who would feel physically sick and angry.  But that revulsion wasn't something inherent.

Just because some people feel uncomfortable with homosexuality (and I admit having that reaction at one time, and to some extent now) doesn't mean it's an integral part of us.

[RoosGirl]

More like being 'extremely flexible', aka politically correctness.

Nobody wants anyone screaming discrimination, in a courtroom, or to the NYT.

@DCPatriot. What a bunch of nonsense.  You suggest catering to a certain group to be on the safe side and shut them up.  How about we have an Undocumented Immigrant pride day?  Special treatment of any group is never the correct answer.

[goodwithagun]

If you let what is publically accepted determine your moral compass you have none.  Right and wrong do not change.

 

If we call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg. Same with mental illness. Calling homosexuality an accepted and tolerated lifestyle does not make it right.

[driftdiver]

@DCPatriot. What a bunch of nonsense.  You suggest catering to a certain group to be on the safe side and shut them up.  How about we have an Undocumented Immigrant pride day?  Special treatment of any group is never the correct answer.

@RoosGirl

Veterans Day
Mothers Day
Valentines Day
.
.
.
.
.

[Jazzhead]

Gay "marriage" is not a civil right.  Neither is marriage between a woman and a man.  I don't have the "right" to marry.  So essentially what you and others advocate for is something that straight couples are denied.

I never said gay marriage (or straight marriage for that matter) is a civil right.   Marriage equality is a matter of the equal protection of the law.   Once the state offers valuable benefits and protections to couples who marry,  those benefits and protections must be extended to both same sex and opposite sex couples.

And this has nothing to do with slippery slopes or religion.   This is about the benefits and protections afforded by the state to civil marriage.   Every church has the right to decide for itself whether to solemnize and respect a civil marriage.  It's perfectly common, for example, for a rabbi to refuse to perform a wedding between a Jew and a non-Jew,  or to require that the couple agree to raise their kids in the Jewish faith.   But that couple can be married in the eyes of the civil law regardless.     

[Suppressed]

@Suppressed

Not the same.   The Bible condemns the latter, strongly and often, but not the former. 

If kids don't have that reaction at all, something's missing.  But I would say that's probably the case with many of them, and it's regrettable.

@CatherineofAragon

Yet in former days, there would have been no disgust over a 39 year old man marrying a 15 year old (in fact, it was considered abnormal for a girl to marry a young man, as he hadn't demonstrated he could provide for her!).  Or a 12 year old female marrying.  Was there something wrong with us then?

How about eating sheep's eyeballs?  Visceral disgust by many.  Or cat?  Same.

The visceral reaction comes from physiology and culture more than the Bible.  I don't know many people who get physically ill at the thought of envy, though it's in the Ten Commandments!

[txradioguy]

Exactly my point.

Yet go back 100 years, and you would have a significant portion of the population who would feel physically sick and angry.  But that revulsion wasn't something inherent.

But again I will point out that it's very intellectually dishonest to try and compare a racial issue with a sexual preference issue.

They are apples and oranges.  The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Just because some people feel uncomfortable with homosexuality (and I admit having that reaction at one time, and to some extent now) doesn't mean it's an integral part of us.

If you truly understand right and wrong you should always be uncomfortable with people who try to pass of their deviant sexual preference as something that is normal and should be accepted.

[goodwithagun]

@RoosGirl

Veterans Day
Mothers Day
Valentines Day
.
.
.
.
.

Last I checked Fed Gov does not mandate that I accept, tolerate, and actively participate in the celebrations that you listed. But Fed Gov mandates "pride" events, pushes homosexuality in schools, and create laws giving homosexuals extra rights. Fed Gov does the same with other mental illnesses including "transgenderism."

[Cripplecreek]

I'd have no problem with that.


IMO when you go to a JP to get married as opposed to a minister or a priest in a church you're entering into a civil union.

Mine has worked quite well for the last 15 years.

I'm also OK with getting the state out of marriage as much as possible.

People like to claim that marriage licenses existed in the days of Washington but what George and Martha Washington had was a legal contract dealing with the distribution of property and debt.

Poor people often had a church sanctioned marriage but lacked any state issued paperwork. On the frontier many never had even a church marriage. They were considered married by simple virtue of having been together for a long time.

Seems that I read that the first true marriage licenses arose in the Kansas Territory shortly before the civil war. White abolitionists were marrying blacks to make them landowners and tilt the scales in favor of abolition.

[Jazzhead]

But Fed Gov mandates "pride" events, pushes homosexuality in schools, and create laws giving homosexuals extra rights.

The federal government does none of those things.

[txradioguy]

I never said gay marriage (or straight marriage for that matter) is a civil right.   Marriage equality is a matter of the equal protection of the law.   Once the state offers valuable benefits and protections to couples who marry,  those benefits and protections must be extended both same sex and opposite sex couples.

You have indeed cited it as a right in the past...even tried rather lamely to say it's a Constitutional right.

You're wrong in both areas.

And this has nothing to do with slippery slopes or religion.   This is about the benefits and protections afforded by the state to civil marriage.   Every church has the right to decide for itself whether to solemnize and respect a civil marriage.

Then get a civil union and be done with it. 

Don't try forcing an abomination to the term "marriage" onto the public and try and force us to accept a perversion as normal.

Then don't get all butt hurt when people push back against what you're trying to force them to accept.

And Ministers and Priests don't conduct "civil marriages" there's no such thing inside of a church.

Civil marriages/unions are conducted buy a Judge or a Justice of the Peace.

[driftdiver]

Last I checked Fed Gov does not mandate that I accept, tolerate, and actively participate in the celebrations that you listed. But Fed Gov mandates "pride" events, pushes homosexuality in schools, and create laws giving homosexuals extra rights. Fed Gov does the same with other mental illnesses including "transgenderism."

I was responding to " Special treatment of any group is never the correct answer." when in fact such a blanket statement cannot be supported.

[txradioguy]

The federal government does none of those things.

@Jazzhead

Wanna bet?  I'll bet your membership on TBR that you're 100% wrong.

[goodwithagun]

The federal government does none of those things.

Um, have you read a modern public school sex ed book? Do a quick web search and prepare to be proven wrong.

As for the other stuff, what was this celebrating again? Oh yeah, homosexuals being granted extra rights.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[goodwithagun]

I was responding to " Special treatment of any group is never the correct answer." when in fact such a blanket statement cannot be supported.

Ahh. Sorry. I misunderstood the context.

[driftdiver]

  Marriage equality is a matter of the equal protection of the law.   Once the state offers valuable benefits and protections to couples who marry,  those benefits and protections must be extended to both same sex and opposite sex couples.

And this has nothing to do with slippery slopes or religion.   

We had equal protection, any man could marry any woman.   What changed is that any man/woman can now marry any thing they say they want to.   Setting the stage for poly marriages, marriage to animals and as one activist stated, a tree stump.

[Suppressed]

But again I will point out that it's very intellectually dishonest to try and compare a racial issue with a sexual preference issue.

They are apples and oranges.  The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

@txradioguy

The intersection is that "visceral reaction" was being used to support the idea that homosexuality is unnatural.  I've demonstrated that the phenomenon does not support that conclusion.  I hope you can see that and will withdrawn your accusation of intellectual dishonesty, as I take that very seriously.

If you truly understand right and wrong you should always be uncomfortable with people who try to pass of their deviant sexual preference as something that is normal and should be accepted.

"Right" and "wrong" defined by whom?

Who is the arbiter of "deviant"?

[RoosGirl]

@RoosGirl

Veterans Day
Mothers Day
Valentines Day
.

 
.
.
.
.

What about them?  Aside from Veteran's Day, which as far as I am concerned should be the month long celebration,  none of those days are special events hosted within a gov't agency.  And since there wouod not be veterans if not for the gov't I think they have jurisdiction over that special day.