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

[TMF]

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.

So what solution do you propose? Legislate morality? Who's version of morality? I can promise you there are far more sinful and decadent things which are legal that far surpasses gay dudes buttf***g each other. Unless your solution is to establish a theocracy and outlaw all things YOU consider to be sinful I will continue to fail to see why so many get sooooooo worked up over homos.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I say let the gays have the same benefits as any other hetero couple in the eyes of the law. To me the government should see it as nothing more than a contract between two people and it should not matter if the parties are the same sex or opposite sex. I also believe that those who choose to live together without being "married" should be able to have the same benefits as anyone else who lives as a married couple. And if on person wants to live with multiple partners that should be their choice. The government should not have anything to say about who someone can and cannot be partnered with and neither should anyone else.

 

Religious institutions, as well as their members, should not have a say in how anyone who is not a member chooses to live. People keep saying that the Bible says it is wrong but what if you don't believe in what the Bible says or if you are of another religion. That makes that reason invalid to anyone but the person holding the Bible. You think a Hindu couple gives a rats ass what the Bible says? People are going to live in the way they want to and as long as it doesn't affect anyone else it should not matter to anyone, any government or any religion how they live. It only creates animosity when one group tries to tell another how they should live and having less animosity between us all is a good thing.

 

People are on a crusade to save other people from themselves. I suggest they spend that time trying to save themselves and leave the rest of the world alone. If we, as a country, could just let people live how they want the world would be a better place.

 

Just remember this, there are more Muslims in the world than any other religion. If we can force people to live under Christian based laws religion then at some point the majority, Muslims, will be able to force their religious laws upon us as well. Personally I would rather let everyone choose their own way to live than risk being force to live in a way I do not want to.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No problem here, with the benefit in the eyes of the law, but don't go telling the church what they can or can't do.

You're playing with a double edged sword, Gordon. Like the Boy Scouts, Kiwanis, Biker gangs, whatever. They

have their individual rules. You may not like it, nor I, but when you go telling someone they can or can't do something

they believe in, you're playing with fire.

 

Make a law if you wish for the benefit of something legal, but leave the religious or moral aspects alone. That's not

how you conform to society, by forcing it. Where's the liberty in that? When you force moral behavior on others, it

is just like infringing on the 2nd Amendment. We tinker with morals too much. Those who choose other pathways do

at their own choice, whether it be a good or bad result. It's the forcing of someone else's acceptance and inclusion

of their ways on others I have the problem with.

 

If you want to change a church's view, go join it and do it from within, but don't go telling me how I'm supposed to act.

 

You have the right to be free. I have the right to be free from you. If you go and tamper with that you're doing damage

to all.

 

Muslims do force their religious views on their members. It's called Sharia Law. Comparing Christians to Muslims isn't

going to work by forcing Christians to change their views.  What difference does it make what a Hindu thinks of the Bible?

Hindus do what they do, Muslims do what they do and Christians do what they do, okay? Tamper with any of them and

see the results.

 

As it stands, religious institutions don't have a say, in this country, what others from different groups believe or do,

except with some laws that are antique and usually unenforced, nowadays, and except by their numbers in votes. How

do you propose to change that? The only way I see is to not let that type of law or referendum never get to the point of

being voted on, and that is fine by me. From what I understand, Muslims would change all that. Would you like that if

they took over and did it? Would you use force to stop that, or would you say they can do it, but Christians can't have

a say?

 

All I'm trying to say is we legislate morality too often, and if we choose to let one group share the benefits of anothers

by an act of law, then we open a can of worms every time we do that. Why don't they just go ahead, keep their mouths

shut and live however they wish to live and see how it works out? Quit trying to take something from someone else,

especially when I know there is a political component involved that has no right to be there.

 

We experiment in some ways that make no sense. Social engineering is one of them. Ever read Brave New World? And

it doesn't stop there. http://io9.com/5948528/the-unintended-consequences-of-chinas-one+child-policy . I posted that

link to show, also, that there are unintended consequences that are tied together with all of it. We are heading down

a path that will unravel civilization by all these tamperings with life. It's too easy to say "live and let live" but understand

what lies ahead.

 

And if one wants to do something without understanding the consequences, may they do it at their own peril. Why put

a child in the middle of the argument, especially when you can't agree or know about that set of consequences any

more than any other outcome.

 

My view about homosexuals hasn't changed, either. I still think their societal structure is based on sex and anything

else has been added to make it look tenable to others. That doesn't mean I think they are bad, or evil, just that they

are unsustainable without outside assistance, like from some socially engineered law.

 

Get's complicated real fast, doesn't it? Aldous Huxley was on to something.

[Guest ThePunisher]

 

 

 
Just remember this, there are more Muslims in the world than any other religion. If we can force people to live under Christian based laws religion then at some point the majority, Muslims, will be able to force their religious laws upon us as well. Personally I would rather let everyone choose their own way to live than risk being force to live in a way I do not want to.

Actually, there are around 2 billion Christians and 1.3 billion Muslims.

[JayC]

I agree with everything you said except if TN recognizes gay marriage it won't force anything on anyone.  Here are a couple of examples of how it would.

 

Lets say you run a medium sized family owned business and provide healthcare to spouses of your employees, but you have religious objections to gay marriage...  The ruling comes down, and now you're forced by law to provide insurance to gay married couples, or violate the law and open yourself up to lawsuits.

 

The second is lets say you run a small wedding chapel out of your barn on your property, (or it could be a wedding cake company, flower arrangements, etc), and are religiously opposed to gay marriage, now you'd be forced to provide services to gay couples marrying or face legal action.

 

So yes, allowing gay marriage in TN would have a direct impact on private businesses which have a moral objection to the practice.

 

David has the right idea, get the state out of the marriage business altogether, allow businesses and people to recognize individually who is or isn't married and be done with it.  And it has the added benefit of recognizing our 'Freedom of Association' rights.

 

Well, I don't think that gay marriage will make anyone gay, so I'm not convinced that if it was recognized in TN it would force anything on anyone.  However, I do disagree with the notion of outsiders attempting to change our laws.

 

I dunno, whenever this comes up I get so pissy because I think the arguments on both sides are rediculous.  The notion that the worth of a person's marriage is whether or not the government properly defines their version of marriage still makes no sense.  The goverment could declare my marriage invalid tomorrow.  That won't change what I have with my wife.  The government could recognize a legal union between a man and his goat as equal to the one I have with my wife and it still won't change my marriage.  Gay marriage is nothing more than a tennis ball you distract your dog with while the neighbor's cat passes through your yard.

 

[JayC]

You do realize other than social security benefits there is no reason 'marriage benefit'?  If anything married couples are taxed at a much higher rate for the same amount of income compared to two single people living together and having children?

 

The entire reason for this push, is to use anti-discrimination laws to force private businesses and individuals to recognize the marriages..  It's all about using the force of the federal government to socially change the country, and nothing to do with taxes.

 

You know there's a simple way to shut BOTH sides up on the matter.

Remove all tax credits for marriage. Say to the masses 'We don't care who you marry, it won't save you any money.'
Both sides will be pissed but they will stop the bulk of their bickering amongst themselves. Everything boils down to money. America has proven the principle takes a back seat to cash every time. If NO one got a tax beak for being married, fewer would do so all around. The pot would boil for a little while longer then it would fizzle out and people would move on.

 

[Oh Shoot]

....David has the right idea, get the state out of the marriage business altogether, ...

 

Everybody keeps saying that, but it's absurd to think it could ever happen. The states have legislated marital status since they were founded, and the US government since the Revolutionary War. What could possibly change it?

 

- OS

[wtl]

There are so many inequalities in our society that we must address, and quickly.

 

It's time for all things abnormal to be recognized as just as legitimate, just as desirable, as things normal. Otherwise, how can every single citizen be happy?

 

We need to take swift action to ensure the happiness of every individual in this country.

 

To that end, let's all do our part and recognize that:

 

Drunkenness is every bit as good and desirable as sobriety, even when driving.

 

Buying stuff with other people's money (or just outright stealing it) is every bit as good and desirable as being self-sufficient.

 

A diet of nothing but Coca-Cola and Twinkies is every bit as good and desirable as healthy, balanced eating.

 

Malignant tumors are every bit as good and desirable as healthy organs.

 

Laziness is every bit as good and desirable as hard work.

 

Dependency is every bit as good and desirable as Independence.

 

Communism is every bit as good and desirable as Democracy.

 

Killing unborn babies is every bit as good and desirable as giving birth.

 

Sex with any gender (or species for that matter), regardless of age, is every bit as good as the sex our bodies are actually designed for.

 

Come on people, let's end all discrimination NOW! Utopia awaits!

[JayC]

Again, the issue here is the size of government...  why does the government run schools?  If you could pick the school you wanted your child to attend, you could select one that wouldn't teach social issues that are morally at odds with your beliefs.

 

Look at the root cause of the problem, the government is too big, and able to force social policy on the citizens, get the government out of the business of licensing marriages, running schools, and violating our natural right of freedom of association...  and who cares what somebody else does...  you can choose to ignore them and nobody will force you to do any different.

 

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!

 

[Dolomite_supafly]

Actually, there are around 2 billion Christians and 1.3 billion Muslims.

I stand corrected. I was wrong, you are right.

[TMF]

I agree with everything you said except if TN recognizes gay marriage it won't force anything on anyone. Here are a couple of examples of how it would.

Lets say you run a medium sized family owned business and provide healthcare to spouses of your employees, but you have religious objections to gay marriage... The ruling comes down, and now you're forced by law to provide insurance to gay married couples, or violate the law and open yourself up to lawsuits.

The second is lets say you run a small wedding chapel out of your barn on your property, (or it could be a wedding cake company, flower arrangements, etc), and are religiously opposed to gay marriage, now you'd be forced to provide services to gay couples marrying or face legal action.

So yes, allowing gay marriage in TN would have a direct impact on private businesses which have a moral objection to the practice.

David has the right idea, get the state out of the marriage business altogether, allow businesses and people to recognize individually who is or isn't married and be done with it. And it has the added benefit of recognizing our 'Freedom of Association' rights.

Those are valid concerns, but I disagree with the idea that a business should be forced by the government to provide a service to a person the business does not want to provide a service to. Then again, it is already done, so I'm not sure what this would change other than adding another "special" group to the mix. For example, there are plenty of folks who still feel very strongly against interracial marriages and couples, yet they are forced to serve them according to civil rights laws. Right, wrong or indifferent, I still feel like if that is your belief you should be able to practice it. Once again, too many damn laws on the books; too much government involvement. We end up making stupid laws already on the books as reasons for/against something rather than canning the stupid laws we started with.

I agree, the government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. It'll never happen though.

[LagerHead]

The government should not be involved in marriage. PERIOD.

[Guest ThePunisher]

BIG government is all about control; Control of people.

[JayC]

Sorry but you're wrong, in TN and many other states up until the late 1890's you didn't have to get a license from the state in order to be married.  You went to your local church and got married, there was no license from the government.

 

MA is the only state that had a marriage license before the revolutionary war, and it was in alternative to going to a church and being married in the eyes of God...  it wasn't until the mid-19th century before any state required that you get a license to be married.

 

How has the Federal government recognized marriage since the revolutionary war?

 

Everybody keeps saying that, but it's absurd to think it could ever happen. The states have legislated marital status since they were founded, and the US government since the Revolutionary War. What could possibly change it?

 

- OS

 

[JayC]

I agree, the government is violating our Freedom of Association, and that is the root cause of this entire issue...  by forcing you to recognize something you find morally objectionable in your own private life or business, you are causing all of the mess we see today.

 

The real question is why can't we get the state government out of the business of marriage business?  The taxes can't amount to much money...  it's all about control... and all of us should band together and take away this power from the states.

 

Those are valid concerns, but I disagree with the idea that a business should be forced by the government to provide a service to a person the business does not want to provide a service to. Then again, it is already done, so I'm not sure what this would change other than adding another "special" group to the mix. For example, there are plenty of folks who still feel very strongly against interracial marriages and couples, yet they are forced to serve them according to civil rights laws. Right, wrong or indifferent, I still feel like if that is your belief you should be able to practice it. Once again, too many damn laws on the books; too much government involvement. We end up making stupid laws already on the books as reasons for/against something rather than canning the stupid laws we started with.

I agree, the government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. It'll never happen though.

 

[Oh Shoot]

Sorry but you're wrong, in TN and many other states up until the late 1890's you didn't have to get a license from the state in order to be married.  You went to your local church and got married, there was no license from the government.
 
MA is the only state that had a marriage license before the revolutionary war, and it was in alternative to going to a church and being married in the eyes of God...  it wasn't until the mid-19th century before any state required that you get a license to be married.

 
Nonetheless, for purposes of inheritance, taxation/debt, and etc, the various states had to consider the couple to be husband and wife by whatever means they determined. That is legislating marriage, whether a civil license was required for it or not.
 

How has the Federal government recognized marriage since the revolutionary war?

War widows were pensioned. But only of course if they were considered married to the deceased.

 

Wild fact: the last Revolutionary War widow on pension did not die until 1906!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Sumner_Damon

- OS

Edited October 23, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[JayC]

Agreed, the government would have to recognize many different forms of 'marriage' if the states got out of the habit of licensing marriage...  But we did this for a long time before states started requiring marriage licenses, we can do it again.

 

Just change the law for the government to recognize any form of civil union or marriage certificate from a church for the purposes of inheritance, taxation/debt....

 

But, then again why do we need special rules for any of those issues?  Why does my wife get taxed at a different rate than my children, or my best friend when they inherit property from me?  If we get rid of the special exceptions under the law for marriage, there are fewer problems to have to solve.

 

 
Nonetheless, for purposes of inheritance, taxation/debt, and etc, the various states had to consider the couple to be husband and wife by whatever means they determined. That is legislating marriage, whether a civil license was required for it or not.
 

War widows were pensioned. But only of course if they were considered married to the deceased.

- OS

 

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I agree, the government is violating our Freedom of Association, and that is the root cause of this entire issue...  by forcing you to recognize something you find morally objectionable in your own private life or business, you are causing all of the mess we see today.

 

The real question is why can't we get the state government out of the business of marriage business?  The taxes can't amount to much money...  it's all about control... and all of us should band together and take away this power from the states.

 

I don't have a firm opinion whether the gov should stay completely out of marriage.

 

One 20th century purpose was syphillis detection and prevention-- The blood tests, ya know. Not real effective, but at least it caught some cases and diverted to treatment.

 

Another purpose was to determine who has the right to direct a child's rearing and care. Who has the right to sign the school trip permission slip or the surgery permission form? Some random dude who claims to be the father? Who is responsible for the care of the child? Where do you go looking for child support?

 

Of course illegitimacy is so rampant nowadays, if you had to rely on marriage to go after deadbeat dads (or deadbeat moms) then perhaps the minority of people could be held theoretically responsible.

 

Marriage law has some default inheritance features that make it easier on couples where one partner croaks without having hired a lawyer to prepare a bullet-proof will. Many pensions can be "somewhat inherited" but only to spouses.

 

Social Security ain't so great a thang, but people now nearing retirement have VERY slim odds of getting all their SS taxes back from the government, unless they are lucky enough to be the rare folks who live longer than average. Because of course mathematically speaking, half the people have lifetimes shorter than average, at least half the people will get ripped off by social security, and then there are those who croak after decades of paying SS tax, but before they collect a penny in return.

 

A married couple doubles its chances of at least breaking even on the SS taxes, because if one of them has a shorter-than-average lifetime, then maybe the other will live longer-than-average and get some of that money back out of the black hole.

[Guest tangojuliet]

ok to be all honest i really dont give a flying flip what a bunch of gays do nor is it my place to judge them 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No one is judging them. They are trying to take a privilege they don't need or have a reason for. I don't care what

they do, either, except when there is no reason for it.

[Oh Shoot]

No one is judging them. They are trying to take a privilege they don't need or have a reason for. I don't care what

they do, either, except when there is no reason for it.

 

You probably wouldn't feel that way if you or your mate were denied, off top of head,  family health insurance, filing taxes jointly, spousal SS or military or employer pension survival benefits, relief from state/federal estate taxes, military base housing, etcetera ad infinitum.

 

I mean, do you and your wife "need or have a reason for" any of those things?

 

- OS

Edited October 24, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest CCPT]

Three words: Adam and Eve

Don't disgrace the sanctity of marriage with perversions. The thing is, they scream tolerance, but they really won't be happy until they get acceptance. I can tolerate, but I'll never accept, sorry. It's not normal...nature itself will teach you that. We live in a sad world where rights and privileges have become severely confused.

[TMF]

Two words: Sharia Law.

[Guest CCPT]

Two words: Sharia Law.

Easy now...lol

[R_Bert]

One word: Rapture

One more: Armageddon

And finally: Maranatha

 

- Even so, Lord, come!

Edited October 24, 2013 by R_Bert