Tn about to get a major dose of liberalism crammed down their throats

[Joe357]

If gay marriage, why not brother and sister, men having multiple wives, dog and women, dog(bitch) and man and on and on. Why should the state require a license to be married. Some of you may also remember having to get a blood test before a marriage license would be issued. Marriage is a religious matter. The joining of one man and one women for life. I know more men and women living together today then ever in my past 58 years on this earth. Is this legal in this state or in any of the Christian religions?
I am happy I don't have many more years in this world because it is going to hell in a hand basket. I feel sorry for the next generation that will have to live with the stupid IMO decisions that are made by this generation.

[jwinter]

Christians, fail to see those people as children of God.
 
It's easy to talk about "condoning deviant behaviors" while failing, again as Christians to see that their sins don't get them any further from God than yours or mine do.
 
It's very easy to use "holy" sounding language when in reality we dismiss the example of Jesus and how he would treat these people.

IMHO, I have to say that as a Christian, I know gays are children of God. I also, realize that they are lost in their sin and could not be farther from God's grace if they tried. We are all born sinners, but as Christians we are to turn from sin and lean on God to get us through the trying times when our sinful heart tries to turn our back to God. Gays willfully live in sin so as a Christian it is had to support their life style. As for Jesus, I believe he would tell them the same thing he would tell any sinner. Follow God's word and turn from sin.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If you look at it from that perspective, I think we've still got a problem - namely that we keep swinging at every pitch.

There are real problems out there. Ones that really matter. This isn't one of those, really. But, look at our dialog at the national level. Conservatives are losing traction by spending so many cycles on this instead of talking about the larger issues.

Party platforms are being dictated by these tiny "constituencies" that are in reality the people who donate to campaigns and show up to vote in primaries. Couple that with the fact that most folks in the "middle" simply don't care one way or another, and that puts us in a really dangerous place.

Add in the fact that the GOP has successfully gerrymandered a lot of these districts to the point that the DNC couldn't rig an election to win in most of them, and you find out that what might seem like a good thing is in fact a bad one. These politicians in these districts, bought by their "constituency" with their moral agenda have zero incentive to negotiate, much less compromise. Their constituents might in fact prefer them walk this whole thing off the cliff.

I hope they don't get the chance, but in the meantime I wish we'd keep from getting all lathered up every time they mention it and instead talk about problems that really matter.

Oh. Except this is convenient for the GOP leadership, too. Maybe if we keep everybody spun up about this they won't realize we don't have a clue how to address $16 trillion dollars in debt or the stomach to actually make any of the hard choices it'll take to get there.

Once again, I agree with you. I think I even addressed this as a ruse to distract us from more important issues, which it works

from both sides.

 

The gay issue doesn't get me all lathered up as you might think. I try to keep it in the political realm and not as a social issue,

which should never be legislated. We have spent from the 60's to the new millenium experimenting with all kinds of social

games, and I mean games, that have only costed our society, all in the name of petty backroom politics. Look at all the social

and environmental issues the Democrats, plus Nixon and a few other Republican progressives have costed us. It will never

return. But that doesn't mean the games need to keep being played. I don't have anything against gays. I hope you know

that. But when one group, in this case gays, want to have something that was never designed for them, why give it to them?

Hell, I think if they want to set up house, that's okay, maybe even raising adopted kids. I'm sure there are some fine people

within that community. But the ones who are throwing this up against the wall all the time, are not doing it for that reason.

This is political chicanery at it's best.

 

Why can't we, as a society, try to do the things that work, instead of bowing to every so-called sub class? This is where I'm coming

from, no hate or religion, just political social experimentation. They are already citizens. That should be good enough. If

they, as a couple are good, decent people, the laws shouldn't hinder them, as far as raising kids, or being two mates.

[Oh Shoot]

If gay marriage, why not brother and sister, men having multiple wives, dog and women, dog(bitch) and man and on and on. ..

One thing at a time, okay? ;)
 

As for Jesus, I believe he would tell them the same thing he would tell any sinner. Follow God's word and turn from sin.

However, the fact is that this issue has been and will continue to be decided legally, not religiously. And in that vein I thank Christ I don't have to live under a Christian (or Jewish, or Islamic, or Hindu, or etc etc) government. Maybe Wiccan would be okay, though.  ;)

- OS

[TMF]

If gay marriage, why not brother and sister, men having multiple wives, dog and women, dog(bitch) and man and on and on. Why should the state require a license to be married. Some of you may also remember having to get a blood test before a marriage license would be issued. Marriage is a religious matter. The joining of one man and one women for life. I know more men and women living together today then ever in my past 58 years on this earth. Is this legal in this state or in any of the Christian religions?
I am happy I don't have many more years in this world because it is going to hell in a hand basket. I feel sorry for the next generation that will have to live with the stupid IMO decisions that are made by this generation.

To say that marriage is a religious matter is to also say that one must be religious in order to participate. Under that philosophy we are talking about something much larger than simply gay marriage. We are now talking about religion dominating our laws. I don't want to live in a country like that. I've spent many years of my adult life in countries where religion dictates law. Not a good thing, no matter how much you may or may not agree with the religion in power.

[MacGyver]

 Maybe Wiccan would be okay, though.  ;)
- OS

Those chicks don't shave, Mac. That's some legislation that I'm just not going to be able to support.

[TMF]

However, the fact is that this issue has been and will continue to be decided legally, not religiously. And in that vein I thank Christ I don't have to live under a Christian (or Jewish, or Islamic, or Hindu, or etc etc) government. Maybe Wiccan would be okay, though. ;)

- OS

I think you miss the point. We need to live under the laws of the religion I believe in, as all the others are illegitimate. Once you're forced to live in a theocracy that mirrors my faith then things will get better. All other faiths be damned, they're all wrong anyway.

Could someone do some research and actually look up the word "liberty" in Websters? For crying out loud, we're simply talking about the government's opinion on marriage. Why on earth would anyone care, gay or straight, what a bunch of corrupt politicians think about their marriage? I just don't get it.

[Joe357]

To say that marriage is a religious matter is to also say that one must be religious in order to participate. Under that philosophy we are talking about something much larger than simply gay marriage. We are now talking about religion dominating our laws. I don't want to live in a country like that. I've spent many years of my adult life in countries where religion dictates law. Not a good thing, no matter how much you may or may not agree with the religion in power.

Where do you believe the concept of marriage came to be if not from a religious belief?

[MacGyver]

To say that marriage is a religious matter is to also say that one must be religious in order to participate. Under that philosophy we are talking about something much larger than simply gay marriage. We are now talking about religion dominating our laws. I don't want to live in a country like that. I've spent many years of my adult life in countries where religion dictates law. Not a good thing, no matter how much you may or may not agree with the religion in power.

Yep. Anyone who thinks that might work out for us ought to have to spend time in a country that's got a theocratic government. It might work out for you for a while. But, then one day you wake up in the minority. See how it works out then.

Our founding fathers had first hand experience with this. They knew better.

[Dane]

Once again, I agree with you. I think I even addressed this as a ruse to distract us from more important issues, which it works
from both sides.



Why can't we, as a society, try to do the things that work, instead of bowing to every so-called sub class? This is where I'm coming
from, no hate or religion, just political social experimentation. They are already citizens. That should be good enough. If
they, as a couple are good, decent people, the laws shouldn't hinder them, as far as raising kids, or being two mates.

So you are saying we should back up to where only white, male, land owners can vote? I mean the rest of these sub classes have it good enough and the laws shouldn't hinder them if they are decent.

The freedoms we enjoy, we enjoy because at one time we were the minority and we fought for tolerance and equality. At one point Christians were the minority and were persecuted for their way of life. In case you missed the history lesson, it wasn't until 300 years after Christ died that Christians actually stopped being persecuted and started doing the persecutions themselves. Unfortunately we haven't stopped yet. Jesus taught tolerance, don't forget that. Also remember this country was founded by those seeking freedom from persecution. Our founding fathers were a diverse group with only a few Christians in the mix.

As others have said regardless of your beliefs, this is not a topic that needs .gov oversight. If a man wants to marry a rock then the .gov ought to issue the certificate for it.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[TMF]

Where do you believe the concept of marriage came to be if not from a religious belief?

I don't care where the concept came from, it's irrelevant when it comes to making laws. I don't care if a person marries his lawnmower. It's none of my damn business. It's none of your damn business. It sure as hell is none of the government's business. We DO NOT live in a theocracy.

[Joe357]

I had a pet rock once ;)

[MacGyver]

Where do you believe the concept of marriage came to be if not from a religious belief?

I think we're talking two different concepts. One certainly has biblical roots. The one in question here, though is an arrangement defined by the state to confer a state endorsed package of benefits (tax status, contract law provisions, survivor benefits, estate planning benefits, insurance benefits, etc...) which don't have a thing to do with church.

Assuming you're married, you may have had a ceremony in a church, but you asked the state for permission when you went and got a marriage license.

Despite the rhetoric, they're not going to start beating down the doors of your church demanding that you start marrying same-sex couples.

[Joe357]

I don't care where the concept came from, it's irrelevant when it comes to making laws. I don't care if a person marries his lawnmower. It's none of my damn business. It's none of your damn business. It sure as hell is none of the government's business. We DO NOT live in a theocracy.

If you don't think so you may want to look at some of the policies we have in place today for example obamacare for one. Also it is my damn business and yours it is our country. Edited October 23, 2013 by joe45

[TMF]

If you don't think so you may want to look at some of the policies we have in place today for example obamacare for one. Also it is my damn business and yours it is our country.

No, it is not my business or has it anything to do with basic freedoms in my country. In case you weren't aware, gays are going to have gay sex whether they are recognized by the state or not. But I assume you want to outlaw that too, right?

I'm just curious, please explain to me how the things that gays do to one another is your business. If it is your business, then it is the business of everyone else what you do with your wife.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So you are saying we should back up to where only white, male, land owners can vote? I mean the rest of these sub classes have it good enough and the laws shouldn't hinder them if they are decent.

The freedoms we enjoy, we enjoy because at one time we were the minority and we fought for tolerance and equality. At one point Christians were the minority and were persecuted for their way of life. In case you missed the history lesson, it wasn't until 300 years after Christ died that Christians actually stopped being persecuted and started doing the persecutions themselves. Unfortunately we haven't stopped yet. Jesus taught tolerance, don't forget that. Also remember this country was founded by those seeking freedom from persecution. Our founding fathers were a diverse group with only a few Christians in the mix.

As others have said regardless of your beliefs, this is not a topic that needs .gov oversight. If a man wants to marry a rock then the .gov ought to issue the certificate for it.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Did I say any of that? Oh, and the government should decide what is good and decent? You, friend have used the term Christian.

I stated very plainly that my argument was purely political and wished to stay away from the religious argument. There are many

better suited to raise the theological argument for or against, than me.

[Joe357]

No, it is not my business or has it anything to do with basic freedoms in my country. In case you weren't aware, gays are going to have gay sex whether they are recognized by the state or not. But I assume you want to outlaw that too, right?

I'm just curious, please explain to me how the things that gays do to one another is your business. If it is your business, then it is the business of everyone else what you do with your wife.

I had enough, no more comments from me. I have my beliefs and you have yours have a nice day.

[TMF]

I had enough, no more comments from me. I have my beliefs and you have yours have a nice day.

Well that is where you're wrong. When it comes to the government the only beliefs I have revolve around liberty. I am not an advocate of gay marriage, I'm an advocate of small government and people not using that government as an action arm to push their religious beliefs on others. Liberty is my only motivation when it comes to deciding policies of our government. Your motivations are obviously religious. That has no place in deciding policy outside the walls of your church.

[Oh Shoot]

Where do you believe the concept of marriage came to be if not from a religious belief?

 

Monogamous pairing came about from logical survival and practical small societal considerations long before there was any "religion" -- before even the first shaman learned he could keep himself fed without having to risk his life to help kill the mammoth. 

 

At what point ritual "marriage" connected to the supernatural became common is debatable, but it certainly far preceded any religious movement that ever became historically recorded.

 

- OS

Edited October 23, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest ThePunisher]

It seems that many are OK with everybody having same sex with anybody as long as they don't bother you or your family. And then the next thing you find out with astonishment is that your child is being taught in school that same sex is normal, and then little Johnny or little Susie begin experimenting with same sex friends. Just coming out of the closet wasn't good enough for Gays. They have had an agenda of destroying the family of what has been virtuous and sacred. A Sodom and Gomorrah society can not last, and will be a self-destructing society. Immoral societies eventually crumble as a result of their moral decadence. History repeats itself.

I wonder why Gays haven't come out of the closet in Muslim countries!

[Chucktshoes]

I wonder why Gays haven't come out of the closet in Muslim countries!

Because it isn't Thursday?

[TMF]

Because it isn't Thursday?

Yep, man-love Thursdays are where it's at. Allah can't see 'em once the sun goes down. Say a prayer for the chai boys tomorrow, they're in for a rough night.

[TMF]

It seems that many are OK with everybody having same sex with anybody as long as they don't bother you or your family. And then the next thing you find out with astonishment is that your child is being taught in school that same sex is normal, and then little Johnny or little Susie begin experimenting with same sex friends. Just coming out of the closet wasn't good enough for Gays.

Those are separate issues. I realize that it is the same people pushing gay marriage as the people wanting to force churches to perform gay marriage and classify Christianity as a "hate group", but that doesn't negate the validity of the argument that gays view their relationships the same as heteros view ours. It doesn't matter what I think about gay marriage, since it is not my business. That is really the root of it here. I don't know a bunch of gay people, but I know a whole buncha straight people who have crappy marriages and should have never gotten married in the first place. I could easily argue that those people don't have the same relationship I have with my spouse. Of course, my opinions don't matter for squat, and I don't believe we should legislate on behalf of what I think is a normal marriage. That violates the basic principles of liberty no matter how you slice it.

When the gay lobby comes after churches then I'm down for that fight. I don't believe the church should be in the business of legislation any more than I think legislation should be in the business of the churches. I agree that the gay lobby is and will come after religious institutions in an effort to force them to perform gay ceremonies. But two wrongs don't make a right. We should always approach any legislation from the perspective of liberty first, and go from there. Yep, liberty leads to moral decadence, but it is better than the alternative. Morality should be a choice.

[Wyldk2]

The reason these moral laws are passed is one small group dosen't like something and thinks it is their place to tell the rest of us what to do. If everyone would mind their own business and focus on other more important things in this world, we might not be in as bad shape as we are in. Leave the government out, reduce the size and influence of government and we might just get better. But then there are going to be some people who think it is the government's job to take care of us. Which i wholeheartedly disagree with.

 

Just like you and I have a right to own firearms, it isn't anyone else's business what we buy, how we buy and how much we buy or have. Just like those who are Homosexuals. Which i'mprobably gonna get a lot of flack from the right-winged bible-toting religous people out there. I'm gonna save you the trouble, I'm a christian, and while I'd love to get into my beliefs in general, this isn't the place. I never mix politics and religion.

 

It's all about the money, religion is a minute point to the homo/hetero marriage ordeal.

[Guest Bassman17SC]

This kind of thing is exactly why DOMA was passed in the first place - to protect states' sovereignty.   If you recall, the law was passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.

 

It was only a matter of time that some gay activist (or activists, in this case) would come after Tennessee's laws when DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

 

This is just one more attack on the Constitution by the GDCs.

 

One of the earlier posters said that "culture progresses."  I cry BS on that.  Our culture is not progressing; it is going down the tube of decadence a la Sodom and Gomorrah.