Santorum and his views on our privacy rights

[Oh Shoot]

Marriage is defined by the church not the state. The .gov has no business being involved in it.

If you are married, or in many cases have ever even BEEN married, your and/or your spouse's money flow is to some degree dependent on the government being involved with it, and that's not going to disappear.

- OS

[kieefer]

Marriage is defined by the church not the state. The .gov has no business being involved in it.

Fine, let's say someone sets them up a church that as part of their religion practices polygamy and beastiality, is that OK with you?

[mav]

Fine, let's say someone sets them up a church that as part of their religion practices polygamy and beastiality, is that OK with you?

How do you go from same-sex marriage to beastiality? That is an enormous stretch.

Look, I know Santorum is concerned about the family, and he believes the family is a stabilizing force within society. I happen to agree with him. However, where Santorum gets it wrong is his suggestions of using the federal government to get more involved. What Santorum fails to realize is that it has been an overly intrusive federal government that has caused the weakening of the family. What once was handled by churches, local communities, neighborhoods, etc... now has federal involvement. It was programs like the Great Society and other nanny-state legislation that started fracturing the family and communities. Increased federal involvement is the exact opposite of what is needed.

Edited January 9, 2012 by mav

[strickj]

I'm not a big religious fanatic but I can see the deterioration of family values and how it has hurt this country. It bothers me.

BS. People have been throwing "family values" out the window since day one. Prostitution is the oldest profession, yanno.

Only difference now is people are not ashamed of their bodies and not ashamed to tell others who they ****.

Far as "family values", what makes you think you have the right to force your values on anyone else?

[kieefer]

How do you go from same-sex marriage to beastiality? That is an enormous stretch.

Look, I know Santorum is concerned about the family, and he believes the family is a stabilizing force within society. I happen to agree with him. However, where Santorum gets it wrong is his suggestions of using the federal government to get more involved. What Santorum fails to realize is that it has been an overly intrusive federal government that has caused the weakening of the family. What once was handled by churches, local communities, neighborhoods, etc... now has federal involvement. It was programs like the Great Society and other nanny-state legislation that started fracturing the family and communities. Increased federal involvement is the exact opposite of what is needed.

I believe I understood you correctly below that you feel that marriage needs to be defined as between a man and woman and civil unions for the gay community.

That's the big question, if marriage is not defined then it can be whatever some church or judge decides it to be (polygamy or even *bestiality). If the government stays out of it, which it will not, then marriage has lost it's traditional moral value.

That is the same thing RS is saying, he just doesn't like civil unions because he feels it will eventually be accepted as a traditional marriage.

I think RS does realize how government has eroded the family, he did try to reform the welfare program and agrees with means testing for entitlements. I'm not going change your opinion of him but I hope you have compared him to others and understand his positions as well as you do RP's.

*If bestiality is too far a stretch how about father and daughter, cousins, brothers and sisters....get my point?

[kieefer]

BS. People have been throwing "family values" out the window since day one. Prostitution is the oldest profession, yanno.

Only difference now is people are not ashamed of their bodies and not ashamed to tell others who they ****.

Far as "family values", what makes you think you have the right to force your values on anyone else?

what am I forcing on you? You can screw whatever you want, I don't care but when you take a tradition like marriage that's been around since earth and want to force me to change it to include whatever you're screwing, then I think it's time to take a stand.

[mav]

I believe I understood you correctly below that you feel that marriage needs to be defined as between a man and woman and civil unions for the gay community.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying civil unions for everybody, straight and gay. Straight couples can still get "married," however, they will also be required to enter into a civil contract for recognition by the government. This way people like myself who recognize "marriage" as a union between a man and woman are still free to do so without compromising their values, and gay people will now share the same rights and privileges as straight couples.

[sigmtnman]

If you are married, or in many cases have ever even BEEN married, your and/or your spouse's money flow is to some degree dependent on the government being involved with it, and that's not going to disappear.

- OS

why can't it? A marriage license is just a tax. Are we so defeated as a population that we are unable to imagine exxersising our God given rights without .gov involvement?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The government shouldn't be penalizing or rewarding anyone for their

marital or civil union status.

This crap started by the gay movement, and a few commies andwas intended

to cause this discussion because the institution of marriage is also part of

what they want destroyed. I guess they've succeeded on this point, also.

Screw gay rights! They already have been given more "rights" that the rest of

us.

Dumb down society and minimalize everything and redistribute any wealth

it can. Take away any trait America has and you end up with communism.

That's one more thing that is killing our country.

[Mike.357]

Wow just wow.

Some people don't get it.

Family values? I am not even sure where to begin.

What could be wrong with two people wanting to declare a lifelong devotion to one another? Didn't your god make them who they are? Do they not have a right to declare it in front of god, friends and family?

[Mike.357]

And my thouhts have nothing to do with gay rights. Being able to choose a consenting mate is a human right.

There was a time when races could not intermarry. Should we go back to those days?

[Mike.357]

And if marriage is some sanctified being then why is divorce so readily accepted.

Bunch of freaking hypocrites.

[kieefer]

The government shouldn't be penalizing or rewarding anyone for their

marital or civil union status.

This crap started by the gay movement, and a few commies andwas intended

to cause this discussion because the institution of marriage is also part of

what they want destroyed. I guess they've succeeded on this point, also.

Screw gay rights! They already have been given more "rights" that the rest of

us.

Dumb down society and minimalize everything and redistribute any wealth

it can. Take away any trait America has and you end up with communism.

That's one more thing that is killing our country.

I was trying to find a happy medium but all it does is divide us, exactly what the left and BHO wants.

You're dead on with your analysis and the solution, if there is one, will make matters worse for one side or the other. Most likely worse for the conservative right.

[kieefer]

That is not what I am saying. I am saying civil unions for everybody, straight and gay. Straight couples can still get "married," however, they will also be required to enter into a civil contract for recognition by the government. This way people like myself who recognize "marriage" as a union between a man and woman are still free to do so without compromising their values, and gay people will now share the same rights and privileges as straight couples.

You want it both ways. I think it waters down the meaning of marriage and takes away the importance that it once stood for before Government replaced the dad with a welfare check.

Ponder this analogy, suppose we took the United States flag and decided to take sections out of it and sew in other flags of different nationalities? Since we are all one people and many people from other countries live here, why not have a flag to represent all of them?

I think it has come to the point that marriage needs to be defined in the constitution to try to save it from being completely irrelevant in the future.

Edited January 9, 2012 by kieefer

[mav]

And if marriage is some sanctified being then why is divorce so readily accepted.

Bunch of freaking hypocrites.

I don't know that anyone has commented on their feelings towards divorce on this thread.

As far as being labeled a hypocrite, I pronounce myself guilty. I try to live by a standard that I can't possibly achieve and fail miserably. In regards to marriage, it has always being recognized as a union between a man and woman. Ever since the government got involved in people's private business things have been screwed up. It should have never happened.

So my not wanting to recognize gay marriage makes me a hypocrite, fine. I still am not going to change my belief. However, I do realize that there is an infringement on individual rights for gay people wishing to receive the same benefits that heterosexual people enjoy. To rectify the problem, I believe there should be civil unions for all. I can still be a hypocrite, as you suggest I am, for not wanting to recognize gay marriage, but my hypocrisy does not infringe on anyone else's right.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Wow just wow.

Some people don't get it.

Family values? I am not even sure where to begin.

What could be wrong with two people wanting to declare a lifelong devotion to one another? Didn't your god make them who they are? Do they not have a right to declare it in front of god, friends and family?

The best thing God did for mankind was to give people the freedom to make choices, and not be robots to God. But, there are consequences to your choices, and collectively as a nation. The one thing that is relevant to everyone is whether or not you choose to follow God's laws or to disobey God's laws. You are either a believer of God or not a believer of God.

[mikegideon]

The best thing God did for mankind was to give people the freedom to make choices, and not be robots to God. But, there are consequences to your choices, and collectively as a nation. The one thing that is relevant to everyone is whether or not you choose to follow God's laws or to disobey God's laws. You are either a believer of God or not a believer of God.

Which God should the government pick? There is a bunch of them. Do they pick the official God by popular vote, or do they just use their own personal preferences?

[Mike.357]

So if marriage should remain what it was in the olden days then mixed races marrying is wrong too. There are churches who openly accept gays. They should be able to marry those id they want same as heteros. Being gay is no more perverted than anything a straight couple does in their bed or kitchen, couch or wherever.

If god decides being gay is wrong i will add that to my list of why i believe as i do.

If you believe in god you must believe he made gay people gay. It is not a choice no matter who anyone believes is in charge.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The truth is that's where this came from. It's another distraction to what else is

going on with our country. what would you rather be talking about.

Divide and conquer.

Mike and Mike, I hope you weren't talking about my post and adding the stuff about

divorce. I thought I addressed it earlier, because a marriage and a divorce have their

mechanisms in the churchs doctrines. Civil unions have always been available in the

form of contracts. The gay movement got involved to stir this crap up so they

wouldn't be left out, or for other ridiculous reasons. Churches are for marriages

and the court can join gays or hyenas, if they choose.

do what you like, do what you like!

vote for me, I'll set you free!

This country has rapidly become a nation of men and not laws.

I don't care what a gay does, or what Rick Santorum thinks about.

Laws shouldn't be put on the books to give sanctity to something

it doesn't have the right to do. Enumerated powers.

I'll leave off a comment I'm thinking,right now because it would just

get me banned.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If a church decides it is okay for two gays, I don't care. The church can

do whatever it wants. Leave the government out of it.

If I believe in God, and I do, why do I have to believe God made them as

they are? I'd love to hear that argument again. That one has been going on

for a long time and it won't get resolved around here, I'll bet. BTW, I don't

have the answer, either. I accept them as they are. I don't get into the why.

[Mike.357]

If being gay was a choice i do not understand why someone would choose it.

Gay people are openly hated by some and derided by many. In many communities if a gay person was open about it they would be shunned, families have disowned their gay children. The list of reason to choose not to be gay can go on and on. Its not a choice. Sure someone can choose to stay in the closet, thats where the choosing ends.

How many members here are gay? You think any of them would want it blanketly known?

Marriage is a contract between to adults, made in front of loved ones. The sex of those getting married should not matter. It certainly does not cheapen marriage between a man and woman.

Divorce cheapens the value society and churches place on marriage. I do not understand how people vow in front of their god to do one thing, then turn around and do another. It all seems very hypocritical.

(Sorry for typos and other errors, typing on a phone)

[Smith]

Don't know where you've been, but the consensus in todays society is that it's not perverted behavior. That term is reserverved for stuff like raping altar boys.

You do realize the context of RS original quote was against this very thing some were trying to get legalized with the sodomy issue?

[Guest ThePunisher]

Which God should the government pick? There is a bunch of them. Do they pick the official God by popular vote, or do they just use their own personal preferences?

Which God do you want to choose? This country was founded by people who primarily believed in the Judeo Christian tenets of faith.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You and I don't understand a lot of things, Mike.

Gays can do what they want, but that doesn't mean I have to cheapen the

institution of marriage to include them in it. And I'm not one to quote scriptures,

so I'll leave the Bible out of this. What happens next? Do two hyenas have the

right to get married? Being sarcastic there. A church can include them in the

institution if it chooses. It's members can also choose to stay or leave that

church, but when you codify a definition of marriage into federal law, you just

cheapened a process for the benefit of some so-called minority. In other words,

you take from one to give to another.

From each according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs.

See any similarities? Part of communist doctrine.

I understand the little bitty keyboard thing:D

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Which God should the government pick? There is a bunch of them. Do they pick the official God by popular vote, or do they just use their own personal preferences?

The government shouldn't pick any God. That's been argued ad infinitum.