To my gay friends

Status
Not open for further replies.
RJM62 said:
It wouldn't. In my opinion, all laws having to do with marriage should be repealed, including community property laws. If a married couple (or trio, etc.) wanted to own their property in common, they could sign a contract to that effect.

Rich
Click to expand...

When the one you love is dying and the parents want to deny you the right to comfort or even be with that loved one, being married is sometimes the only way.
 
Re: from one moderate conservative to another ..

txflyer said:
We have bigger things to worry about than 1% of the population who want to marry themselves.

I have hand it to them, the LGBT community has been fabulous keeping their cause and name in the headlines when they represent about as much power voting as us farmers I'll bet. Maybe more, but not much more. I'm not worried about it. What worries me are the 50% and growing base of voters who pay no federal income tax. That's what steers elections and issues.

Americans are dying everday for freedom and our enemies keep conspiring to kill us so what adult people do behind closed doors isn't any of my business and isn't important in a macro sense. If there is a higher court than man, so be it, it isn't my issue. War and financial depression concern me. Business concerns me. :)

" the chief business of America is business." -- Calvin Coolidge
Click to expand...

Farmers are allowed to marry and love one another, too.
 
* Believe in freedom, self-determination, and a separation between church and state

* Oppose gay marriage


Pick one. There is absolutely no credible reason to ban this beyond "I don't like". Well guess what, you live in a free country. People are free to think and do things you don't like. If you want to live in a country where religious morality dictates law, there are quite a few of them in the middle east I believe... have fun with that.

You don't have to like homosexuality, but yes you do have to let people live their lives. That's a good thing, it means nobody gets to tell you how to live your life. It's freedom, it's what we at least always say our soldiers fight for... enjoy it.
 
cowman said:
* Believe in freedom, self-determination, and a separation between church and state

* Oppose gay marriage


Pick one. There is absolutely no credible reason to ban this beyond "I don't like". Well guess what, you live in a free country. People are free to think and do things you don't like. If you want to live in a country where religious morality dictates law, there are quite a few of them in the middle east I believe... have fun with that.

You don't have to like homosexuality, but yes you do have to let people live their lives. That's a good thing, it means nobody gets to tell you how to live your life. It's freedom, it's what we at least always say our soldiers fight for... enjoy it.
Click to expand...

I would like to marry a tree and get all the tax benefits of marriage. I would like to take tax exemptions on My tree's saplings that I adopt.
 
But there was a giant step towards tyrrany in granting said freedom. There is nothing those ugly broads on the court can't do now.
 
bartmc said:
I would like to marry a tree and get all the tax benefits of marriage. I would like to take tax exemptions on My tree's saplings that I adopt.
Click to expand...


Go ahead. As soon as the tree consents, I'm ok with that.
 
Corporations can dump all the money they want on congressmen, the government can compel citizens to buy a product, the NSA can spy on us, the president has the power to kill citizens, the police are conducting all sorts of no-knock raids, holding people for long periods without trial........

but gay marriage is where it's all gone wrong?

come on... really?

Btw while y'all were arguing over this and Confederate flags world corporations dumped a bunch of money on congress and they passed a big trade bill that had been kept secret from the public until leaked and probably contains all sorts of stuff that's not good for we the people.

But yeah gay marriage was important so lets worry about that.
 
Re: from one moderate conservative to another ..

AuntPeggy said:
Farmers are allowed to marry and love one another, too.
Click to expand...


Who would want to marry a farmer? :lol:

Hey, if people want to stick a corn cob up their butt, it's none of my business is all I was saying.

It really isn't going to affect me or society much I don't think... it would be a rather un-interesting video on utube nowadays... if it doesn't have tenticles, it's not cutting edge ... ;)
 
Pandora's box.
Polymory of unlimited numbers, demands for benefits from government and employers, demands your ten spouses be allowed into the country, litigation, it's coming.


Time to get government out of recognizing chosen human relationships.
People should create legal docs how they want things handled for their life choice wishes.

I see nothing to celebrate, careful what you wish for, few seem to think farther down the road these days.

Though I wonder why this is celebrated as a great right of the people when
I see other rights endlessly assaulted that are actually spelled out clearly in the constitution.
 
Mutts said:
Pandora's box.
Polymory of unlimited numbers, demands for benefits from government and employers, demands your ten spouses be allowed into the country, litigation, it's coming.


Time to get government out of recognizing chosen human relationships.
People should create legal docs how they want things handled for their life choice wishes.

I see nothing to celebrate, careful what you wish for, few seem to think farther down the road these days.

Though I wonder why this is celebrated as a great right of the people when
I see other rights endlessly assaulted that are actually spelled out clearly in the constitution.
Click to expand...


I do see your point on this but consider that the government already is very involved in human relationships and has been since the beginning. Sure create legal documents but a lot of people don't think of this or can't afford a good lawyer to do it. Marriage also factors into things like offering testimony against a spouse, all kinds of military related benefits, and much more... power of attorney, inheritance, and taxes are just the tip of the iceberg.

We'd have spent the next 2 or 3 decades rewriting law and another century figuring out new interpretations and precedents.... or we could just add to the definition of legal marriage. This would seem to be the better route for everyone,
 
bartmc said:
I would like to marry a tree and get all the tax benefits of marriage. I would like to take tax exemptions on My tree's saplings that I adopt.
Click to expand...

Let us know when you find a tree that is able to form and communicate informed consent.
 
overdrive148 said:
Like mandating that marriage is only recognized between a man and a woman? :idea:
Click to expand...

Yes.
Really at this point, why is it's governments business anymore?
Make your own legal docs how you want things recognized as far
as money and other decisions.
Libertarians might just want to start this conversation now because
again, Pandora's box is opened and that means goverment is going
to have to deal with that, and we taxpayers sucked in with no choice to pay for every benefit extended to all these new recognized relationships deemed benefit worthy.
 
I will make it political so maybe they will move this to the SZ. :D

Regardless of your view on this particular topic. The reality is the court is now legislating through their rulings, the President is legislating through executive order, the only people not doing much legislating is congress unless of course their corporate overloads are paying them to.
 
DFH65 said:
I will make it political so maybe they will move this to the SZ. :D
Click to expand...

As if AP didn't do that in post #1. But its OK, its NEVER political if its what the left wants; or if they say so.
 
Good grief, I have to read this crap even here?

Frankly, I come to POA as a respite from the pathetic Ferguson/cross-dressing/flag banning/gay marriage obsessed world of mouth breathers I must deal with every day.

Please move this to the Spin Zone!
 
What I'm hearing is that the individual states have no business deciding who can marry who. So brother/sister , father/daughter, etc marriage prohibitions should also be abolished. And why only two people can marry?
 
JOhnH said:
I still don't understand why this took a supreme court decision. Marriage should be solely between two (or more?) people (no animals allowed, but that is just my opinion). The government has no place in the decision making process. For that matter, neither does religion, although I have no problem with marriage being blessed or sanctioned by a religion.
Click to expand...
Animals are fine.
Furthermore, we're thinking about adopting our foster kid and then the three of us getting married.
 
Tom-D said:
This is the big issue :

The Tenth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to further define the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The amendment says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution. These powers include the power to declare war, to collect taxes, to regulate interstate business activities and others that are listed in the articles.

Any power not listed, says the Tenth Amendment, is left to the states or the people. Although the Tenth Amendment does not specify what these “powers” may be, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that laws affecting family relations (such as marriage, divorce, and adoption), commerce that occurs within a state’s own borders, and local law enforcement activities, are among those specifically reserved to the states or the people.

The Supreme court has on this issue over stepped its authority, by making law rather than interpreting it as constitutional or not.
Click to expand...
You are exactly correct. I couldn't care less if 2 guys want to marry and screw each other in the azz until they bleed out but it should be left to the states to determine if the azz screwing can happen under the cover of marriage.
If you want to discuss if the state should be involved at all...
 
Last edited:
Preface: I have friends that are gay and I am not a homophobe. But I'm not going to pretend it's normal either. What people do behind closed doors is generally none of my business.

But here's my thing, both sides miss the boat on this issue. Marriage isn't about love. Nobody needs a certificate for that. It's all about the protection of children. Period. It's a legal contract with a specific purpose. And by the way I think it's the State's right to get involved with the process to the extent that they are expected to support children that are not financially supported by their parents (fathers in particular.) That includes the right to force common law marriage and corresponding responsibilities to couples that produce children out of wedlock.

This is an issue that doesn't exist on the gay side. Yes I am aware there are gay couples that do care for children, but a gay union in itself does not create a child, and those that have been allowed to adopt presumably had demonstrated the financial ability to do so.

Gay people can and always have been able to form civil partnerships that allow the rights of survivorship over money and property. It's called a will. I agree with Climbnsink that the only victory that has been scored here is further erosion of the nuclear family in support of greater governmental control over our individual lives. That might sound contradictory to my first statement regarding the States' involvement in marriage, but it's not really, as it is (was at least) the status quo. This affects all of us, including gay people, equally. This is not a victory for gay people or moderately liberal people. This is a victory for Marxists.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Preface: I have friends that are gay and I am not a homophobe. But I'm not going to pretend it's normal either. What people do behind closed doors is generally none of my business.

But here's my thing, both sides miss the boat on this issue. Marriage isn't about love. Nobody needs a certificate for that. It's all about the protection of children. Period. It's a legal contract with a specific purpose. And by the way I think it's the State's right to get involved with the process to the extent that they are expected to support children that are not financially supported by their parents (fathers in particular.) That includes the right to force common law marriage and corresponding responsibilities to couples that produce children out of wedlock.

This is an issue that doesn't exist on the gay side. Yes I am aware there are gay couples that do care for children, but a gay union in itself does not create a child, and those that have been allowed to adopt presumably had demonstrated the financial ability to do so.

Gay people can and always have been able to form civil partnerships that allow the rights of survivorship over money and property. It's called a will. I agree with Climbnsink that the only victory that has been scored here is further erosion of the nuclear family in support of greater governmental control over our individual lives. That might sound contradictory to my first statement regarding the States' involvement in marriage, but it's not really, as it is (was at least) the status quo. This affects all of us, including gay people, equally. This is not a victory for gay people or moderately liberal people. This is a victory for Marxists.
Click to expand...

I am infertile. What is your opinion about my marriage?
 
AuntPeggy said:
My wedding anniversary occurred yesterday. To my gay friends, welcome to the club. I love you all.
Click to expand...

Didn't read any further than your post.

1) there should be no "club".
2) I'm not opposed to civil unions on a state by state basis. It's truly NOT the business of the Federal Government to stick their nose in here.
3) Civil Unions vs marriage ONLY because "marriage" has a religious connotation to it. If the verbiage is "marriage" than what stops to courts from making the Catholic Church from performing gay weddings?
4) I totally believe in 100% equal rights as far as the priveleges associatied with marriage are concerned.
 
Last edited:
AuntPeggy said:
I am infertile. What is your opinion about my marriage?
Click to expand...

Your spouse is legally next of kin. Without kids, excepting the divorce industrial complex, that is what state approved marriage does.
 
AuntPeggy said:
I am infertile. What is your opinion about my marriage?
Click to expand...

I think there are societal reasons why you should be married (e.g. it sets a positive example for other couples in a child bearing position.)
 
Kritchlow said:
Didn't read any further than your post.

1) there should be no " club".
2) I'm not opposed to civil unions on a state by state basis. It's truly NOT the business of the Federal Government to stick their nose in here.
3) Civil Unions vs marriage ONLY because "marriage" has a religious connotation to it. If the verbiage is "marriage" than what stops to courts from making the Catholic Church from performing gay weddings.
4) I totally believe in 100% equal rights as far as the priveleges associatied with marriage are concerned.
Click to expand...

Principled stands all; and ones I agree with. Alas, you've not adequately celebrated the lifestyle choices of those anointed by out cultural Maoist leaders, and therefore you must be pushed like the bigot you are. After all, Tony Kennedy said that opposing the militant homosexual agenda has no legitimate basis besides "animus".
 
AuntPeggy said:
I am infertile. What is your opinion about my marriage?
Click to expand...

If he's anything like me, he couldn't give a flying ****. Same goes for hundreds of millions of other people, gay and straight.
 
pilot_dude said:
You are exactly correct. I couldn't care less if 2 guys want to marry and screw each other in the azz until they bleed out but it should be left to the states to determine if the azz screwing can happen under the over of marriage.
Click to expand...

For those of you in favor of leaving it entirely to the states...

Imagine you were "married" in one state, then ...

Traveled to a state that didn't recognize your "marriage" ...
What would happen in the event one of you were to be incapacitated or hospitalized in that non-recognizing state? Would the well spouse have visiting rights or any say in care?

Established residence in such a state ...
Would you be able to get a divorce if you so chose?

These are (or have been) real issues for same-sex couples.
 
JoeSelch said:
For those of you in favor of leaving it entirely to the states...

Imagine you were "married" in one state, then ...

Traveled to a state that didn't recognize your "marriage" ...
What would happen in the event one of you were to be incapacitated or hospitalized in that non-recognizing state? Would the well spouse have visiting rights or any say in care?

Established residence in such a state ...
Would you be able to get a divorce if you so chose?

These are (or have been) real issues for same-sex couples.
Click to expand...

Serious question then....
So based on this is my pistol permit now valid in all states? Most states have more lenient laws than mine do the gun laws of my state now revert to the Federal law? Why don't we just get rid of the states then? We could consolidate the corruption that way.
 
DFH65 said:
Serious question then....
So based on this is my pistol permit now valid in all states? Most states have more lenient laws than mine do the gun laws of my state now revert to the Federal law? Why don't we just get rid of the states then? We could consolidate the corruption that way.
Click to expand...

IANAL
 
DFH65 said:
I will make it political so maybe they will move this to the SZ. :D

Regardless of your view on this particular topic. The reality is the court is now legislating through their rulings, the President is legislating through executive order, the only people not doing much legislating is congress unless of course their corporate overloads are paying them to.
Click to expand...

This is the issue EXACTLY!

Everyone is focused on the ends justifying the means. We are losing sight of the fact that our entire system of governance, the Constitutional Republic, has been substantially eroded during the past 80 years or so and is is all being done by 9 unelected political appointees that are accountable to no one.

Regardless of your position on the issue of gay marriage, this decision was another brick that has been removed from the foundation of our republic.

Abram Finkelstein
N48KY
 
DJTorrente said:
Principled stands all; and ones I agree with. Alas, you've not adequately celebrated the lifestyle choices of those anointed by out cultural Maoist leaders, and therefore you must be pushed like the bigot you are. After all, Tony Kennedy said that opposing the militant homosexual agenda has no legitimate basis besides "animus".
Click to expand...

I need to reference my dictionary... Not sure if you agree or disagree!! :D:D:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top