Santorum and his views on our privacy rights

[Mike.357]

I am, too. You're not a leftist, Mike. They aren't

for liberty.

Liberty isn't defined by passing laws to include

one group or another. I'm sorry about it someone

acts one way for whatever reason or another, but

you can't fix everything by passing laws. You

only get tyranny.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i would say that maybe liberty is defined by having laws that do not exclude one group or another. (ten percent being a rough estimate on the amount of gay people in the US)

I believe as a society we should be excepting of this. I absolutely believe this issue is a sticking point for people because in the most basic sense homosexuality offends them. It is equated with perverts, pedophiles and who knows what else.

I don't think gay marriage is going to send this country to hell. The so called countries leadership is doing a fine job of it as is.

I like shooting the AK cause it scares the bejeezus out of the nanny staters.

[Oh Shoot]

... but when you take a tradition like marriage that's been around since earth ....

Marriage hasn't been around sine earth.... unless the dinosaurs had church, too.

Just for perspective, dinosaurs are pretty recent too, only old compared to smart little apes walking upright.

Earth: 4.5 billion years

All recorded written human history: ~5,000 years

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?

Well, since it has never happened in any civilization in history, including here, yeah. Ain't happening. Death and taxes, like that.

...You are either a believer of God or not a believer of God.

Nope. I stand as example.

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

Except for the acknowledged Deists, including the feller who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Preamble to the Constitution.

Also, if you think US Constitution (or criminal code) is modeled after Jewish scripture, you certainly need to bone up more on the Old Testament (as I have previously suggested to you). Has much more similarity to Islam than Christianity in regard to justice.

- OS

Edited January 10, 2012 by OhShoot

[East_TN_Patriot]

RightWingNews.com :: Archives

also in defense I'd say this subject is the least of our worries.

Based on the content of that link you provided, the author basically says "Yes, Santorum said all that, but I don't think it's a big deal and you shouldn't either." I wasn't looking for dirt on Santorum when I found that. I posted the entire Heritage comment in context and there is a link to the original article. He clearly said in two different venues that he thinks the right to privacy is a myth and is not in the "common good." If you are OK with that, then that's your choice. I, on the other hand, find those comments very dangerous. Once that precedent is set, the downward spiral begins.

[mav]

The problem I have with how the original topic has degraded is it is rife with intellectual dishonesty. There are some who are advocating for gay marriage under the banner of liberty and rights. Careful examination of what has been stated clearly shows that is not the case; it is merely a masquerade for anti-religiosity.

Discrimination (racial, sexual, religious, etc...) by an individual, like it or not, is one of the freedoms we have in this country assuming that the discrimination doesn't infringe on another individual's rights. Discrimination by the state (meaning government as a whole) is wrong period, and that is what we have in this case. The solution to this problem is being deterred by two different activist groups. One on side we have a group of activists that want to use government to enforce their particular religious beliefs on other people, which ends up denying a group of individuals certain civil rights/benefits enjoyed by others. On the other side we have a group of activists that want to use government to force people to accept their chosen lifestyle, thereby denying certain individuals the right to freely exercise certain tenets within their religion/faith. Both are wrong, and trying to reason with either group is nothing more than an exercise in futility.

Ultimately, the state should have never been involved in citizen's private affairs, which in this case it is marriage. Since the state is already involved, the point is moot. As we have seen in this thread, there can be no reasoning with the aforementioned groups. Therefore, it is left to more reasoned individuals to come up with an equitable solution, which I am certain both groups will hate.

As I have stated numerous times, the only solution to this problem that is fair for all individuals is the incorporation of civil unions for all. The state will no longer recognize marriage, but only the civil union. Those that are currently married will be grandfathered in under a civil union. Gay couples desiring the same benefits as heterosexual couples now have the liberty to partake in such benefits. Churches and individuals that do not accept gay marriage because of religious, moral, sociological, etc... beliefs or are still free to do so.

To those on the right who do not like it, that is tough. The state should not have gotten involved in the first place, and it is wrong for the state to discriminate in matters of sexual orientation. To those on the left who do not like it, that is too damn bad. You are now free to enjoy the same rights as everybody else. And to be honest and since you are denied nothing that really matters, why would you really care whether someone recoginzes your union as marriage or not? If you continue to try to get people to accept your lifestyle, you are going to end up being a miserable person. Enjoy your life (you only have one of them), enjoy your liberty, and pursue your happiness.

My last point, which is an important one that nobody has addressed, concerns us single folks. Why should married couples gay or straight receive special treatment or recognition by the state? Is that not unfairly discriminating? Am I not being denied rights/benefits enjoyed by others?

Edited January 10, 2012 by mav

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You have freedom to do as you please. I have freedom to be free from you. That's liberty.

When you have to pass a law to make someone feel included, something else is going on.

Like I said before, I don't care what gays, hyenas or chimpanzees do. Just don't pass a law

that gives them something that the law has no business doing. Marriage is between the

couple and God. The government has no right to determine what marriage is or is not. They

may pass a law, but that does nothing except make a victim "feel" included.

Let them get married in a church that will allow it, but don't try to force a church to

condone it if it isn't their belief. That's what the gays really want. They want to destroy

a tradition and use a law to do it.

I can't wait to see two guys get a divorce. I'll laugh my ass off.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Very good. mav, especially the last sentence. I never understood that, either.

[Mike.357]

I dunno if it was two guys or girls but i recall a gay couple fiing for divorce . I am not sure but i think it was in Mass.

[Guest lostpass]

You have freedom to do as you please. I have freedom to be free from you. That's liberty.

Let them get married in a church that will allow it, but don't try to force a church to

condone it if it isn't their belief. That's what the gays really want. They want to destroy

a tradition and use a law to do it.

I can't wait to see two guys get a divorce. I'll laugh my ass off.

Pretty certain that no one is trying to force a unwilling church to condone gay marriage. What people are after is not a church to recognize gay marriage (they already can if they wish) they want the government to afford the same privileges to gay couples that it affords to heterosexual couples. That seems only right to me. But like others have said it is hard for me to see why the .gov is involved with marriage in the first place.

Besides all that, there is a pragmatic to support, enthusiastically, gay marriage. Weddings are a pretty major business for a lot of folks. Photographers, bakers, travel agents and so forth. Imagine how much dough "fabulous" weddings would release into the economy. American jobs, small business and so forth.

I don't they are trying destroy a tradition so much as join in.

As for the divorce thing, heck yeah, plenty of those will happen. This will also be good for business. The lawyers will get more biz but think about the paint stores, they'll be selling a lot of paint because the recently divorced will be changing the walls from ecru to eggshell.

Plus, dammit, if you are stupid enough to reject the gift that is not being allowed to marry then you kind of deserve what you get.

[Moped]

Post deleted.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Moped

[Oh Shoot]

....My last point, which is an important one that nobody has addressed, concerns us single folks. Why should married couples gay or straight receive special treatment or recognition by the state? Is that not unfairly discriminating? Am I not being denied rights/benefits enjoyed by others?

Yes, especially childless single folks.

Top of head: adoption, designation of SSI, military, and pension benefits after our death. Did they fix the income tax disparity between single and married filing jointly?

I'm sure there are many more.

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

When working for the TN Dept of Human Services, I remember a case where an old man on his last legs with cancer, married a young unmarried mother in the neighborhood (who he liked and had known for a long time) specifically so that the kid could receive his survivor benefits. No strictly romantic involvement at all, just wanting to do the mom and kid a favor.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Pretty certain that no one is trying to force a unwilling church to condone gay marriage. What people are after is not a church to recognize gay marriage (they already can if they wish) they want the government to afford the same privileges to gay couples that it affords to heterosexual couples. That seems only right to me. But like others have said it is hard for me to see why the .gov is involved with marriage in the first place.

Besides all that, there is a pragmatic to support, enthusiastically, gay marriage. Weddings are a pretty major business for a lot of folks. Photographers, bakers, travel agents and so forth. Imagine how much dough "fabulous" weddings would release into the economy. American jobs, small business and so forth.

I don't they are trying destroy a tradition so much as join in.

As for the divorce thing, heck yeah, plenty of those will happen. This will also be good for business. The lawyers will get more biz but think about the paint stores, they'll be selling a lot of paint because the recently divorced will be changing the walls from ecru to eggshell.

Plus, dammit, if you are stupid enough to reject the gift that is not being allowed to marry then you kind of deserve what you get.

I'm pretty certain they are. Why didn't this happen earlier? How long have they been trying ?

Pragmatic what? Reason? Oh! increase capitalistic behaviour

Divorce good for business! That's a good one. Excuse behaviour by increasing business in certain categories.

I do think they are trying to destroy a tradition. We disagree!

Stupid enough to reject the gift...? Study up on what a marriage is and maybe is not before you tell me what

I deserve what I get. I guess I could understand that last sentence better if you might rephrase it.

[strickj]

you, your god and your government.

So why are you waning to make marriage about your god and them?

Since the government has their nose in it thanks to a number of reasons, mainly the one that AR mentioned, they want to change the definition to include....what? Then what will be next? Why is the left forcing me to accept something that I don't agree with? Why are they wanting to change the rule of law?

Umm, how about... it doesn't affect you? You are forcing your views and your god down the throats of others.

No one is forcing anything on you. Not wanting to accept gays is your choice.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, some people seek to overturn and destroy these very foundations which society, government and religion rest. Some want us to be an atheist nation and this is the path to tyranny.

I've made my points. Believe what you want.

You do realize that the first thing our founders did was to ensure that religion and government always stayed separated, right?

[Guest lostpass]

I'm pretty certain they are. Why didn't this happen earlier? How long have they been trying ?

Pragmatic what? Reason? Oh! increase capitalistic behaviour

Divorce good for business! That's a good one. Excuse behaviour by increasing business in certain categories.

I do think they are trying to destroy a tradition. We disagree!

Do we? "Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other.

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged"

Stupid enough to reject the gift...? Study up on what a marriage is and maybe is not before you tell me what

I deserve what I get. I guess I could understand that last sentence better if you might rephrase it.

See, that's a joke. The general idea being that guys would get out of marriage if they could so they could have relations with different females. And by relations I mean intercourse. You know, the whole idea of being tied down to one woman and all. It doesn't bother me, but it is a pretty common joke. Marriage usually precludes this since women want, generally, fidelity and all. Sure, it is a gross generalization but that is where the humor lies.

I still don't get what tradition anyone is trying to destroy. How does a bad marriage, gay or otherwise, impact my marriage in any appreciable way? If everyone alive from this moment until time ends only engages in homosexual unions it won't change my commitment to my wife one iota. Perhaps it is different for other people. They might measure their marriage by how accepted it is by society and so forth. Good for them, but I can go my own way, I'm satisfied with my female wife and so forth. I don't need the gov to tell me it is okay or give me approval.

[mikegideon]

Marriage is two things. It's whatever a given church thinks it is, and the it's the legal description. The legal description should be available to everybody. There are plenty of religious gays, and I figure it's up to them to figure that out. When it comes to the law, it should be equal opportunity.

Granted... this nation was founded by white Christian folks. We don't need to lose sight of the fact that those folks would oppose some of the stuff in this thread. Seperate it! They wrote that part down.

[Guest nysos]

Everson v. Board of Education

Whatever happened to separation of church and state? To me marriage in the eye of the state has always been about paperwork and taxing, and no bearing on same sex vs different sex. Being married to someone or not also does not dictate any difference in the amount of love you have for them, it is just a title and piece of paper. There are plenty of couples that have dated for a few years that probably love each other much more than many strained marriages that have been together for 10,15,20 years....

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Do we? "Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other.

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged"

See, that's a joke. The general idea being that guys would get out of marriage if they could so they could have relations with different females. And by relations I mean intercourse. You know, the whole idea of being tied down to one woman and all. It doesn't bother me, but it is a pretty common joke. Marriage usually precludes this since women want, generally, fidelity and all. Sure, it is a gross generalization but that is where the humor lies.

I still don't get what tradition anyone is trying to destroy. How does a bad marriage, gay or otherwise, impact my marriage in any appreciable way? If everyone alive from this moment until time ends only engages in homosexual unions it won't change my commitment to my wife one iota. Perhaps it is different for other people. They might measure their marriage by how accepted it is by society and so forth. Good for them, but I can go my own way, I'm satisfied with my female wife and so forth. I don't need the gov to tell me it is okay or give me approval.

I guess I'm too shallow to understand what you are talking about. What joke?

That's how you justify what you say? By my tag line? To justify exactly what? Why don't you read the rest of Francisco's

speech before you use something to justify another. Francisco wasn't talking about relationships with women. However

he was talking about capitalism being superior to something else.

Edited January 10, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So some of you folks are okay with the government defining what goes on in a church? But you are totally for a separation

of the two. Reconcile that please.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

A pretty good account I think.Separation Of Church And State

This thread began by talking about Rick Santorum's view on privacy and marriage. Now it will probably

end up in the gutter by talking about Thomas Jefferson's slave offspring and how all the Founders were deists.

[Mike.357]

For gays to marry doesn't the legal definitio n have to change?

I am sure if that happened there would be churches that would perform the deed.

[TMF]

Are we talking about gay marriage or Santorum not wanting me to get a bj in the privacy of my own home?... I got lost.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Just for perspective, dinosaurs are pretty recent too, only old compared to smart little apes walking upright.

Earth: 4.5 billion years

All recorded written human history: ~5,000 years

Well, since it has never happened in any civilization in history, including here, yeah. Ain't happening. Death and taxes, like that.

Nope. I stand as example.

Except for the acknowledged Deists, including the feller who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Preamble to the Constitution.

Also, if you think US Constitution (or criminal code) is modeled after Jewish scripture, you certainly need to bone up more on the Old Testament (as I have previously suggested to you). Has much more similarity to Islam than Christianity in regard to justice.

- OS

OS, you are certainly one self-conceited, self-deceptive, and self-delusional old coot. Please don't choke on your oatmeal and wheat germ at the breakfast table while ruminating on how omniscient you are.

[Guest nysos]

OS, you are certainly one self-conceited, self-deceptive, and self-delusional old coot. Please don't choke on your oatmeal and wheat germ at the breakfast table while ruminating on how omniscient you are.

And all form of discussion goes right out the window.

[Oh Shoot]

A pretty good account I think.Separation Of Church And State

This thread began by talking about Rick Santorum's view on privacy and marriage. Now it will probably

end up in the gutter by talking about Thomas Jefferson's slave offspring and how all the Founders were deists.

Not necessarily, but that's a poor site for an unbiased view of Church/State (or likely much else on there after a quick glance around) since it only exists to evangelize Christianity, and does it on every page.

- OS

Edited January 10, 2012 by OhShoot

[Oh Shoot]

OS, you are certainly one self-conceited, self-deceptive, and self-delusional old coot. Please don't choke on your oatmeal and wheat germ at the breakfast table while ruminating on how omniscient you are.

And all form of discussion goes right out the window.

No, actually he won me over -- I am humbled in the face of such an overpowering intellectual argument presented with such grace and eloquence.

- OS