in NYS driving is a privilege that one must ascend to meeting it's requirements.....
marriage is a choice....either do it the religion-of-your-choice way or do it the government way.....as a matter of fact one can be secretly married only the benefits of 'the state' wouldn't cover the sig-other....that's the only reason government even gets involved....
Finally the argument is settled. It took a while but the solution has been made clear.
The government can only define a government sanctioned wedding, subject to benefits and rights of couples as it relates to government benefits.
The church can only define a religious marriage. The church has no right to interfere with the competing marriage contracts, sanctioned by the government.
This isn't separate but equal at all.
It is clearly separate and personally unique.
The church should be teaching the flock to abandon the government sanctioned marriages, used to claim rights and benefits under the law.
The church should be teaching people to put religious values ahead of government benefits.
The church(Christian) should also be teaching the flock to love their enemies, not ridicule or ostracize them for not being believers in the teachings of Christ, as defined by the Christian religions.
Turn the other cheek. All persons will answer for their own actions when they meet their creator after death.
Christ never taught hatred, bigotry or intolerance.
Christians want to make this entire gay marriage issue about religion. They should start by practicing what they should be preaching.
Government approved weddings are no business of the church, except as a point to teach the flock about the difference between a government wedding and an actual Christian wedding.
The church always has the right to not perform Christian wedding for gay people. The church has the right to not condone gay or lesbian priests. The government has no authority to change any beliefs or traditions of the church.
The church has no authority to demand the government issued laws conform to the rules of the church.
Separation of church and state.
Christians need to stop crossing the line between them.
The government is not trying to change the rules of the church, just the rules of government issued laws and regulations.
I happen to consider myself to be a Christian Conservative Libertarian. I don't care if Johnny wants to marry his sister, his cousin, his 4 sheep or whatever. Provided that he breaks no laws that could be considered as initiating the use of force against me personally.
Do I consider gay marriages wrong? No, because it is a matter between themselves and God.
Do i favor abortions? Absolutely not, but I do favor the right of people to not believe in Christian values and have their laws represent their personal beliefs. Abortionist will be dealt with by their creator, the same as those who use high powered hunting rifles to attack abortion clinics.
True Christians know that people will be judged upon their actions and that force is not to be used against non-believers.
To me, Jesus was a true Libertarian.
The Christian Church has allowed Jesus' name to be used wrongfully to fight wars, burn witches, attack gays and any number of other causes.
The teachings of Christ can't be claimed by those who hate others beliefs, thereby demanding christian conformity.
Christian values can't, and should never be, inflicted on others, by rule of law.
Religious values should never be regulated by laws.
All further questions or complaints can be answered by:
Man Buck, you fail again. You are showing off you Rick Santorum BIG GOVERNMENT conservatism. America can't have that radical individualism.
Buck are making an argument for 'separate but equal' marriage licensing. As long as the majority passes a law excluding people from the license, that's ok? They tried separate but equal in the south with black children and publics schools. The difference is, marriage isn't a public government run institution, marriage is a personal ceremony(many times religious) between individuals. This debate wouldn't even be happening if the government wasn't involved in licensing peoples personal relationships. What is even more troublesome when the debate is between the left who wants to use the state to validate a relationship, and the neo-conservative right who wants to use the power of the state to deny recognition of a relationship. Both sides of the argument are statists. The left doesn't disguise their state controlled collectivism. The right does a better job disguising their state controlled collectivism. Either that, or many on the right are just to ignorant to realize it.
Answer - get government out of licensing ALL personal consensual relationships. They are personal religious ceremonies for the most part, and the government has no legitimate roll in it.
Please separate your religious arguments from the legal arguments and you will see there is no real conflict.
The government has the right to pass any law they are elected to enact by the power of the people that elected them.
No laws are allowed by law to interfere with religion.
Gay marriage only applies to government approved marriages.
Traditional religious marriages are still allowed. The church doesn't own the word marriage.
Keep the separation of church and state intact and there is no conflict. Christians are allowed to vote. If they win the laws will reflect christian values. If not, they must abide by the laws of the land.
When the laws of the land conflict with the Christian beliefs, a choice must be made, to be a Christian or a law abiding citizen.
Personally, my beliefs outweigh any law ever written. I, however, will not force my beliefs on anyone.
Please separate your religious arguments from the legal arguments and you will see there is no real conflict.
I was arguing it as a legal issue. Buck being a big government "conservative", he tried to equate marriage licensing to driver licensing. I was attempting to point out the LEGAL argument that the gay lobby is making. The state cannot discriminate and give the benefits of licensing to one group and restrict it for another because of genders in the relationship. Denying a blind person a drivers license due to the danger that person would be to the general public is justifiable. Denying same sex couples of a marriage license and the legal benefits that go with it are denied why? How does state licensing of same sex marriage threaten the safety of the general public? I think legally and politically the gay lobby wins that argument.
My point has been to change the grounds on which the argument is being debated on. I think you, senders, and myself agree...Change the argument to WHY government licensing of ALL marriage and you will realize BOTH the neo-cons and the liberals believe in social engineering and changing behavior through government force.
What "this" generation are you talking about? The 60's anti establishment generation? The Woodstock generation? The generation that is currently in all levels of government?
Couldn't have said it better myself!! Today's 'older generation' are the left over, pot smokin', lsd'n, brain dead hippies!!!! Those must be the ones that are full of hatred and bigotry.....yes?
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Couldn't have said it better myself!! Today's 'older generation' are the left over, pot smokin', lsd'n, brain dead hippies!!!! Those must be the ones that are full of hatred and bigotry.....yes?
Today's 'older generation' are the left over, pot smokin', lsd'n, brain dead hippies???
The pot smokin hippies were then and are today a minority of their generation. The majority of Americans of that age were typical Democrats or typical Republicans of their day. The "Pot smokin hippies protested the Democrat Presidential Convention as well as the Republican.
Bumble posts about what fits his agenda... long on opinion... short on facts. >
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I think legally and politically the gay lobby wins that argument.
My point has been to change the grounds on which the argument is being debated on. I think you, senders, and myself agree...Change the argument to WHY government licensing of ALL marriage and you will realize BOTH the neo-cons and the liberals believe in social engineering and changing behavior through government force.
I agree that the pro-gay marriage lobby does win the legal and political argument.
I am curious as to why you consider elected officials performing social engineering to be a use of government force.
I don't believe that all marriage is licensed by the government. Licensing only applies to those wishing to use the married status for favorable government treatment under the law.
The only marriages that the government can define are those specifically licensed by them. The government issuing licenses to gay couples does not regulate or apply in any way to any religion or religious event.
The government has no authority to license or regulate a religious event.
Even common law marriages are still recognized by law in certain states. The church does not recognize common law marriages.
Both can exist and have existed for a long time. Only the government definition is being changed.
Couldn't have said it better myself!! Today's 'older generation' are the left over, pot smokin', lsd'n, brain dead hippies!!!! Those must be the ones that are full of hatred and bigotry.....yes?
No.
I am hoping that this is sarcasm. Sarcasm doesn't work well when typed. Don't they have a sarcasm smiley?
I agree that the pro-gay marriage lobby does win the legal and political argument.
I am curious as to why you consider elected officials performing social engineering to be a use of government force.
I don't believe that all marriage is licensed by the government. Licensing only applies to those wishing to use the married status for favorable government treatment under the law.
The only marriages that the government can define are those specifically licensed by them. The government issuing licenses to gay couples does not regulate or apply in any way to any religion or religious event.
The government has no authority to license or regulate a religious event.
Even common law marriages are still recognized by law in certain states. The church does not recognize common law marriages.
Both can exist and have existed for a long time. Only the government definition is being changed.
The church is not affected in any way.
First, marriage licensing is use of government force because it incentivizes a behavior in return for government benefits. Government benefits that you are FORCED to pay into. So the government says, if you get your marriage licensed by the government, you are eligible to collect the money you are forced to pay to the government. Like receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits of a spouse. If you do not have the government recognized license, you can't collect.
Second, state licensing of same sex marriage will also inevitably result in a change in the sex ed curriculum in the compulsory education system. If public school teaches about heterosexual sexual behavior, it would eventually be pushed into teaching homosexual sexual behaviors in the name of equality. If you can afford to pay compulsory school taxes and and afford to send your child to private school where you have more control of the curriculum, great...If not, like a majority of Americans, your child will be forced to sit though state sex ed that teaches values that run counter to your religious teaching. Church has a tough time swimming against those currents.
So I agree that government has no ability to regulate religious events, they do have the ability to promote the secularization of marriage by incentivizing it with financial government benefits. They also have the ability to use the pubic education system to impress on young minds the states definition of marriage. Both religious and state marriage can coexist, but I disagree that the church won't be affected, it is my opinion that the state will consume the church, if it hasn't already.
Today's 'older generation' are the left over, pot smokin', lsd'n, brain dead hippies???
The pot smokin hippies were then and are today a minority of their generation. The majority of Americans of that age were typical Democrats or typical Republicans of their day. The "Pot smokin hippies protested the Democrat Presidential Convention as well as the Republican.
I really find it offensive to call pot smoking hippies brain dead, hateful or bigoted.
Logged
