Professur
Well-Known Member
The specific line I was replying to : Marriage. It was never intended to be a short-term relation.Spike said:
Homosexual rated Corporations
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
Actually, I'm just so tired of some of the subjects that this is my reaction.No one on this board has said anything at all new on this subject in at least four years (including people who have been here less than four years). Why does anyone care where homosexuals like to shop? If you don't like it, don't shop there.
Well then, start some threads with new & interesting topics.
Sawhney89
New Member
That's retarded.
Spike your going to have a long and lonely life. When you are at the alter and are about to get married you are up there hoping you will be able to live through the bad parts of life together, start a family, and die happily together. The government has no right to enforce or possibly "fine" the stupid citizens of the US for having one-night marriage stands. It rather should be enforced through one's morals. If you want a hooker go to Canada and pick one up. Don't take a women's feelings for advantage, marry her, bang her, and then break up with her. Marry a women you love and hope for the best. If you have fights along the way and it does not work out, at least you know you tried and you were just not compatible. But one should have enough morals to go ahead with a marriage without thinking about divorce a few weeks, months, or years away...
Spike your going to have a long and lonely life. When you are at the alter and are about to get married you are up there hoping you will be able to live through the bad parts of life together, start a family, and die happily together. The government has no right to enforce or possibly "fine" the stupid citizens of the US for having one-night marriage stands. It rather should be enforced through one's morals. If you want a hooker go to Canada and pick one up. Don't take a women's feelings for advantage, marry her, bang her, and then break up with her. Marry a women you love and hope for the best. If you have fights along the way and it does not work out, at least you know you tried and you were just not compatible. But one should have enough morals to go ahead with a marriage without thinking about divorce a few weeks, months, or years away...
Altron
Well-Known Member
I really get irked by people who treat the laws as a moral compass, and have nothing of their own to add.
Laws and governments are not infallable. Just because the government says something, does not mean that it is right.
I really don't think the government should be too involved in the area of marraige (although, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a damn thing about how married couples are treated legally. If Prof and Gonz want to enlighten me, that would be very agreeable, despite it possibly requiring me to alter my opinion). The Episcopal Church says that marraige is between man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. That's the standard I go by. Would I be opposed to gays getting married in a church that accepted it? Not really.
I don't think the government has the right to step in and say who you can and can't marry or unmarry. That's far too 1984 and far less 1776 for me.
The government is not the source of morality. The government's job is to govern us. Not to tell us right and wrong. That's up to YOU. Uncle Sam can't hold your hand and let you know what's right and wrong. Only your personal integrity and religious beliefs, if any, can do that.
As far as I can tell, in the Constitution, there aren't laws governing marraige. They realized that it's a matter of personal integrity.
The government cannot replace conscience. That's where we get all these problems from.
100 years ago, we had this little thing called personal responsibility. If your neighbor washed his floor, and you slipped, you realized that it was your own damn fault, and took responsibility for it.
Now, you blame him, and sue him.
It's forcing the government to become more and more proactive and controlling. Sooner or later, we're going to have an Orwellian government. Why? Not because of overzealous leadership. Because as personal integrity and responsibility disintegrate, the only thing keeping the masses from madness will be the government.
A democracy works best when people are honest. If people become so irresponsible and ignorant that they can no longer adequetly govern themselves, a totalitarian government will inevitably form.
It isn't the governments role to tell us what's right and wrong. By forcing it to do so, we willingly suffer under tyranny. Our decisions should not be dictated by what the government says we should and should not do, they should be dictated by what we know is right and wrong.
Laws and governments are not infallable. Just because the government says something, does not mean that it is right.
I really don't think the government should be too involved in the area of marraige (although, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a damn thing about how married couples are treated legally. If Prof and Gonz want to enlighten me, that would be very agreeable, despite it possibly requiring me to alter my opinion). The Episcopal Church says that marraige is between man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. That's the standard I go by. Would I be opposed to gays getting married in a church that accepted it? Not really.
I don't think the government has the right to step in and say who you can and can't marry or unmarry. That's far too 1984 and far less 1776 for me.
The government is not the source of morality. The government's job is to govern us. Not to tell us right and wrong. That's up to YOU. Uncle Sam can't hold your hand and let you know what's right and wrong. Only your personal integrity and religious beliefs, if any, can do that.
As far as I can tell, in the Constitution, there aren't laws governing marraige. They realized that it's a matter of personal integrity.
The government cannot replace conscience. That's where we get all these problems from.
100 years ago, we had this little thing called personal responsibility. If your neighbor washed his floor, and you slipped, you realized that it was your own damn fault, and took responsibility for it.
Now, you blame him, and sue him.
It's forcing the government to become more and more proactive and controlling. Sooner or later, we're going to have an Orwellian government. Why? Not because of overzealous leadership. Because as personal integrity and responsibility disintegrate, the only thing keeping the masses from madness will be the government.
A democracy works best when people are honest. If people become so irresponsible and ignorant that they can no longer adequetly govern themselves, a totalitarian government will inevitably form.
It isn't the governments role to tell us what's right and wrong. By forcing it to do so, we willingly suffer under tyranny. Our decisions should not be dictated by what the government says we should and should not do, they should be dictated by what we know is right and wrong.
spike
New Member
How about developing an ability to get the quote right.
If you check you'll find that's not what I said.
Sawhney89
New Member
The government needs to become proactive however only in certain areas. Concerning the area of marriage the government needs to stay out. When the government gets involved with marriage (ie. banning gay marriage) it becomes unconstitutional. Bush wants to ban gay marriage off his interpretation of the bible and church interpretations. Thus, the whole argument of church and state arrives. Bush has done a good job of combing church and state. While we have spent the last 100 years trying to keep them apart.
The government does need to become proactive while giving states sovereignty. I mean with a large democratic country like the US, we need a bigger brother closely analyzing each situation. In my personal opinion growth needs to be monitored by the government but the states needs to take actions towards growth. The government should govern the country and improve the betterment of society. They should not interfere with personal lives of the everyday citizen.
The government does need to become proactive while giving states sovereignty. I mean with a large democratic country like the US, we need a bigger brother closely analyzing each situation. In my personal opinion growth needs to be monitored by the government but the states needs to take actions towards growth. The government should govern the country and improve the betterment of society. They should not interfere with personal lives of the everyday citizen.
spike
New Member
And yet it's still an unrelated issue.
spike
New Member
Exactly.
Government embraced marriage as a way to strengthen the family. The family, which is the very basis of a cohesive nation, strengthens the economic life of the nation.
Homosexuals are not forbidden to marry. Their choice of partner is the hang up. There has to be a set of laws governeing life, otherwise anarchy takes over. Since there has to be laws, there needs to be a beginning and/or an end point. Since marriage is both a religious & and a civil commitment, government would be required to interfere with religious doctrine to allow homosexual marriage, violating Article IV, Section 1 and the First Amendment.
Do you believe for one millisecond that this would even be a consideration on 1776?
Homosexuals are not forbidden to marry. Their choice of partner is the hang up. There has to be a set of laws governeing life, otherwise anarchy takes over. Since there has to be laws, there needs to be a beginning and/or an end point. Since marriage is both a religious & and a civil commitment, government would be required to interfere with religious doctrine to allow homosexual marriage, violating Article IV, Section 1 and the First Amendment.
Do you believe for one millisecond that this would even be a consideration on 1776?
spike
New Member
They do not have to interfere with religious doctrine. Just allow the marraiges at city hall and churches that are in favor.
Altron
Well-Known Member
Well, if their religious organization approves it, I don't see any problem with their choice of partner.
I really don't see how allowing it interferes with religious doctrine. Christian doctrine, yes, but we have freedom of religion.
Hmm, I might take spike off the iggy, just for kicks.
I really don't see how allowing it interferes with religious doctrine. Christian doctrine, yes, but we have freedom of religion.
Hmm, I might take spike off the iggy, just for kicks.
The Bible, The Torah & The Koran all describe homosexuality as sinful. In order to follow Article IV, a marriage in one is a marriage in all. Allowing homosexual marriage in a civic setting would give license for a lawyer to file suit forcing religions to follow suit. Otherwise, it's discrimination.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
You can't sue a church for a civil infraction.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
You can't force a church to change their doctrine, either, unless it breaks a criminal code.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Then you have that nasty Seperation of Church and State to deal with. If they interfere with that, they open the door for state mandated prayer.
spike
New Member
I'd like to see proof of you're claim about the Bible, Torah, and Koran. I've seen the evidence about the Bible from both sides and it's basically up for interpretation (as many other things about the bible). Many churches have no problem with homosexuality.
Regardless, allowing marriage ina civic setting certainly would not force churches to follow suit because of discrimiation. Churches have always been allowed to have their own rules on marraige and divorce and can even refuse either to a heterosexual couple.
