GOP President-Elect Donald Trump Says Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Settled' Law

[thackney]

  Pedophiles actually commit a violent crime on another person in general. Or they seek out kiddie porn, which is a violent crime in how it is made.

Pick another example if you prefer.  Individuals have lots of actions/perversions/etc that society deems unacceptable.

My point is, just because it comes naturally to those individuals is not sufficient justification to force the rest of society to accept it.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Pick another example if you prefer.  Individuals have lots of actions/perversions/etc that society deems unacceptable.

My point is, just because it comes naturally to those individuals is not sufficient justification to force the rest of society to accept it.

I agree about force. But I still think as long as you're not hurting anyone else you have no reason to be ashamed of who you are.

[mirraflake]

@Maj. Bill Martin



What's your point?

@mirraflake

My point is gay men look at Kate Upton the same way we look at men..no interest or revulsion.  It is not a choice

@Maj. Bill Martin

[thackney]

I agree about force. But I still think as long as you're not hurting anyone else you have no reason to be ashamed of who you are.

Bigamists? Incest relationships?  Those should be accepted by everyone else if consenting adults?

My point is we all draw a line.  We are only arguing where to draw it.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Bigamists? Incest relationships?  Those should be accepted by everyone else if consenting adults?

My point is we all draw a line.  We are only arguing where to draw it.

What you accept is up to you, bro. We're all individuals.


I stated my opinion now you have to deal with it.

[mirraflake]

Pick another example if you prefer.  Individuals have lots of actions/perversions/etc that society deems unacceptable.

My point is, just because it comes naturally to those individuals is not sufficient justification to force the rest of society to accept it.

In many  Muslim countries women are not allowed to vote, drive, go out on their own because Muslim culture finds those actions also perversion or which their  society deems unnaceptable

@thackney

[Sanguine]

I'm not going to argue whether or not people are "born that way", because some probably are and some probably aren't.  That's not the issue.   Marriage is, and has been throughout history, an union of man and woman for the purpose of creating a family.  They may or may not have children, nonetheless they have, through marriage, created that basic unit of society.

Now, if we want to give the same "rights" to other, non-marital couples, fine.  Write up the laws and pass them.  Don't try to change the definition of marriage, because that is more an effort to weaken that basic unit of society than it is to ensure "equal rights". 

[thackney]

What you accept is up to you, bro. We're all individuals.

I stated my opinion now you have to deal with it.

Yep, we each will vote for politicians that most agree with our views.

Cheers!

[thackney]

In many  Muslim countries women are not allowed to vote, drive, go out on their own because Muslim culture finds those actions also perversion or which their  society deems unnaceptable

Yes, I know.  I've lived in one of those.  I choose no longer to do so.

[thackney]

Now, if we want to give the same "rights" to other, non-marital couples, fine.  Write up the laws and pass them.  Don't try to change the definition of marriage, because that is more an effort to weaken that basic unit of society than it is to ensure "equal rights".

 

[Jazzhead]

Now, if we want to give the same "rights" to other, non-marital couples, fine.  Write up the laws and pass them.  Don't try to change the definition of marriage, because that is more an effort to weaken that basic unit of society than it is to ensure "equal rights".

I don't disagree, but note there's a difference between religious marriage and civil marriage.   The state can have no role in changing the definition of religious marriage.  But since civil marriage is wholly a creation - a contract, a legal status -  of the state, the state is obliged to afford its citizens the equal protection of the law. 

I also don't understand how gay marriage "weakens" the "basic unit of society" represented by the institution of civil marriage.  As I've noted above,  what concerns me about our modern culture is the easy acceptance of sexual promiscuity.   Yet most gays who seek to marry want to affirm a permanent and monogamous sexual relationship the same way that straight couples do.   Given the AIDS epidemic,  I'd say the rise of marriage equality is good for the community by encouraging and recognizing responsible sexual behavior.         

[Maj. Bill Martin]

My point is gay men look at Kate Upton the same way we look at men..no interest or revulsion.  It is not a choice

@Maj. Bill Martin

But so what?  Then it's a preference.  They don't prefer to take advantage of what a law offers.  They're permitted to marry a woman if they want (and some actually do).  If they don't want to, fine.

[Sanguine]

I don't disagree, but note there's a difference between religious marriage and civil marriage.   The state can have no role in changing the definition of religious marriage.  But since civil marriage is wholly a creation - a contract, a legal status -  of the state, the state is obliged to afford its citizens the equal protection of the law. 

I also don't understand how gay marriage "weakens" the "basic unit of society" represented by the institution of civil marriage.  As I've noted above,  what concerns me about our modern culture is the easy acceptance of sexual promiscuity.   Yet most gays who seek to marry want to affirm a permanent and monogamous sexual relationship the same way that straight couples do.   Given the AIDS epidemic,  I'd say the rise of marriage equality is good for the community by encouraging and recognizing responsible sexual behavior.         

Yes, I 'splained that a few pages back. 

[SirLinksALot]

I don't disagree, but note there's a difference between religious marriage and civil marriage.   The state can have no role in changing the definition of religious marriage.  But since civil marriage is wholly a creation - a contract, a legal status -  of the state, the state is obliged to afford its citizens the equal protection of the law. 

Given that there is a difference between religious and civil marriage, here is the thing that religious (and I am talking about the devout ones ) people are concerned with --- WILL THE GOVERNMENT AND THE GAY ACTIVISTS, GIVE THEM LEEWAY TO NOT accept such "marriage"?

Unfortunately, under the Obama administration, the answer to the above question I just posed is "No."

That question I just posed has always been the concern of devout Evangelicals and Catholics. One reason why Trump got over 80% of the Evangelical votes and a majority of the Catholic votes is PRECISELY because they were given the impression that their religious liberties will be protected.

States that pass a Religious Freedom Act are being tainted and boycotted and small business people are losing their businesses, fined hundreds of thousands, and threatened with jail for refusing to provide service for such "marriage".

There will be no societal peace unless the answer to the above question is "YES".

I am not sure if these religiously devout folks should heave a sigh of relief yet.

[thackney]

I also don't understand how gay marriage "weakens" the "basic unit of society" represented by the institution of civil marriage.

Because the relationship of a man and woman in marriage is a unique relationship, differing from all others.  Men and Women are not interchangeable in all circumstances.  A real marriage brings together two different aspects that are greater than the whole.

All the legal aspects you believe homosexuals are excluded from are available in different forms, be it trusts or other documents.  I agree it should not be made more difficult for them and propose legal civil unions be separate from the marriage.

Just as you do not want your marriage changed in name to separate it from a religious ceremony, I do not want my marriage to be equated with a homosexual union.

I do agree with you on promiscuity being extremely damaging to marriage and society.  I view the forced acceptance of alternative lifestyles part of this growing problem.

We will never stop all individuals from behavior damaging to themselves and to society in general.  Free will and individual choice are basic structure of being human.  But the attempts to remove consequences from those behaviors has damaged us all.

[Machiavelli]

JH is part of the "born this way" crowd.

@txradioguy

I'm with @Jazzhead on this. Do you really think that someone would choose to be an outcast.

I don't think homosexuality is a sin or a disease. I think it's normal, but rare -- like a four leaf clover.

[Norm Lenhart]

My point is gay men look at Kate Upton the same way we look at men..no interest or revulsion.  It is not a choice

@Maj. Bill Martin

My sister in law was as gay as the day is long. Until she wasn't. My daughter's best friend was a 'married' lesbian until about a month ago. And now she's back to men.

It's obviously a choice. And please lets not try to get into these people's heads with 'well they were never REALLY gay" type nonsense. They were gay. Now they aren't. End of.

"It's not a choice" is an excuse invented by heterosexuals trying to justify the BEHAVIOR of their friends and relatives so they do not have to face the reality that their friend/relative has problems that need to be dealt with and not enabled. Being gay does not make someone a bad person. It makes most of them people with behavioral issues in need of help. When they get help instead of a steady stream of encouragement to self destruction, most can overcome their problem. In the rare cases of actual hormonal/chemical issues, those will never be helped until people stop ignoring science or twisting it to justify social engineering.

Personally, I don't care who sticks what, in whom with their consent. When people start the nonsense of legislating against normal heterosexuals and destroying thousands year old societal institutions, which they have to further spread the nonsense that 'gay is normal', then it is a problem for everyone, including the homosexuals.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

I'm with @Jazzhead on this. Do you really think that someone would choose to be an outcast.

I don't think homosexuality is a sin or a disease. I think it's normal, but rare -- like a four leaf clover.

It's not a disease...it is a sin...and its not normal.

People IMHO are not born gay.

Thats like saying someone is born attracted to fat people over skinny or blondes over red heads.

All are learned preferences not something you have from birth.

[Norm Lenhart]

@txradioguy

I'm with @Jazzhead on this. Do you really think that someone would choose to be an outcast.

Yes. Often.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbMVnfmHjvo

[Machiavelli]

My sister in law was as gay as the day is long. Until she wasn't. My daughter's best friend was a 'married' lesbian until about a month ago. And now she's back to men.

@Norm Lenhart

Men and women are different.

[Cripplecreek]

Yes. Often.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbMVnfmHjvo

A lot of people choose to be outcasts. There are a lot of advantages to being a member of a victim or outcast class in American society today.

[Norm Lenhart]

@Norm Lenhart

Men and women are different.

Are you seriously going to forward the idea that lesbians can 'convert' but gay men cannot?

[sneakypete]

Well that's rich.  You make this bogus case of equal protection in order to cater to one person's personal choice while completely ignoring the personal choice (with 'equal protection' rights attached) of another.

I suppose some animals are more equal than others.

@Some are clearly smarter than others.

[Norm Lenhart]

A lot of people choose to be outcasts. There are a lot of advantages to being a member of a victim or outcast class in American society today.

It's a badge of honor across the spectrum. Some people pierce themselvs, some scar themselves, some knock holes the size of silver dollars in their cheeks and nostrils.

Some men dress like women for shock value. Some women get tatted up and dress like Hell's angels.

Some people buy Apple products in a Windows PC world.

Some people buy Hummers in San Francisco and Piruses in Texas.

People doo all manner of things that 'outcast' them from society as a whole or their local 'society. And to fit in to their cliques of 'fellow outcasts. The traditional joke is "I wanna be an individual just like all my friends".

Commercials tout the 'rugged individualism' of 'seperating yourself from the herd' in everything from Body spray to cheese spread. It is absurd to think that being an outcast is anything but a desirable thing in 2016 when all the evidence shows it is.

[sneakypete]

The Roman Catholic Church Canon Law used to allow age 7, and at the turn of the 20th Century, it was still at age 12, as most US states.

And at that time, Delaware was age 7, and many states were at 10 years.

I think the age 7 or 8 thing for marriage was legal in Delaware right up to the 70's. Maybe later. IIRC,Playbody magazine published an article about the ages of sexual consent to sex in all states back then. I have to admit that I was shocked to see anyone under 16 could marry anywhere,even with parental consent.