APP - My Official Position on Conservative Candidates Signing onto the NOM Pledge

I am curious, and have never been given an answer to this question:

If we allow gay marriage, what is the worst that will happen? I am not talking about forcing churches to participate in gay weddings against their will. Just allowing gay marriage.

What will happen that is bad?
 
WinterBorn said:
I am curious, and have never been given an answer to this question:

If we allow gay marriage, what is the worst that will happen? I am not talking about forcing churches to participate in gay weddings against their will. Just allowing gay marriage.

What will happen that is bad?
Click to expand...


I can answer this since I asked the same question till I finaly got an answer.

The FEAR is that if we allow gay marriage, we can't stop polygamy. Don't ask me, that is what the fundamentalists are afraid of. Like most rightwing fears, it makes no sense whatsoever, since polygamy is illegal in all 50 states.
 
Return of Dune said:
I can answer this since I asked the same question till I finaly got an answer.

The FEAR is that if we allow gay marriage, we can't stop polygamy. Don't ask me, that is what the fundamentalists are afraid of. Like most rightwing fears, it makes no sense whatsoever, since polygamy is illegal in all 50 states.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is as logical as Dixie's "If we allow that someone will want to marry their mailbox".

Apparently the concept of "two consenting adult" doesn't register. But you know, as long as all parties in the polgamous marriage are aware and willing, I personally see no problem with that either. I see that as another example of the gov't interfering where it doesn't belong.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Some people always try to equate privileges with rights. What's your point?
Click to expand...

My point is equality. If everyone is equal before the law then the law should apply equally to everyone. If two things are the same it's illogical to refer to them by different names. If marriage and a civil contract between two homosexuals are supposed to be the same then call them by the same name. It's that simple.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
ah, i see what you're referring to now. I, like the founding fathers, feel that the list of inherent and inalienable rights is too extensive to enumerate.
Click to expand...

Sort of like the Preamble to the Constitution where it reads, "promote the general Welfare". The list of things that promote the general welfare are too extensive to enumerate. Things like health care, for example.
 
apple0154 said:
Sort of like the Preamble to the Constitution where it reads, "promote the general Welfare". The list of things that promote the general welfare are too extensive to enumerate. Things like health care, for example.
Click to expand...

'promote the general welfare' is not a power prescribed to the government. It's a general order to define how the government is supposed to use the powers assigned to it, in promoting the general welfare. Health care under promoting the general welfare would be ensuring that doctors are free to treat their patients the best way they know how, not to write policies and procedures as if they were a government agency.
 
WinterBorn said:
I am curious, and have never been given an answer to this question:

If we allow gay marriage, what is the worst that will happen? I am not talking about forcing churches to participate in gay weddings against their will. Just allowing gay marriage.

What will happen that is bad?
Click to expand...

You ask what will happen!!!!

(Excerpt) Crazed scientists all over the globe are “playing god” with the very building blocks of life. Today, thanks to extraordinary advances in the field of genetic modification, scientists are now able to do things that were once unthinkable. Part human/part animal hybrid monsters are being created by scientists all over the planet and it is all perfectly legal.

It is only a matter of time before humans start allowing themselves to be genetically-modified in order to “fight illness” or to “enhance” their abilities. The temptation to insert the genes of animals or plants into people in order to create “super soldiers” or a “superior race” will certainly prove to be much too tempting.

Once genetically-modified humans start breeding with normal humans there will be no putting the genie back into the bottle. Eventually, we could get to the point where there are very few “100% humans” left. (End)
http://www.pakalertpress.com/2011/0...ng-created-by-scientists-all-over-the-planet/

Check out the video.

Scientific experiments will result in part human, part animal beings. Allowing other than a human man and a human woman to marry will set the stage allowing the mating of those "hybrids" resulting in a "Planet of the Apes" scenario.

Once genetically-modified humans start breeding with normal humans there will be no putting the genie back into the bottle. Our descendants will look back to the time we allowed gays to marry. That's what will happen!!!

Or maybe not. :D
 
SmarterThanYou said:
'promote the general welfare' is not a power prescribed to the government.
Click to expand...

Promote the general welfare is referred to in the Preamble and "The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Not a power prescribed to the government? The Preamble informs us of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. The Constitution's fundamental purpose. If a government is to uphold the Constitution it has to uphold the fundamental purpose of said Constitution. How can anyone logically argue the government has the obligation and power to uphold the Constitution but doesn't have the obligation and power to uphold the fundamental purpose of the Constitution?

It's a general order to define how the government is supposed to use the powers assigned to it, in promoting the general welfare. Health care under promoting the general welfare would be ensuring that doctors are free to treat their patients the best way they know how, not to write policies and procedures as if they were a government agency.
Click to expand...

If the current reality ensured medical care for everyone then government's involvement would not be necessary. A study by Harvard showed 45,000/yr are dying due to lack of proper medical care. With the current recession that number can't do anything but rise and considering high unemployment is forecast for an extended period of time there's no better time than now for the government to step in.
 
Rana said:
If government isn't involved how would non religious person join together? A contract?
Click to expand...

when two people get a marriage license, and have it properly filled out and returned to the appropriate government entity, they are entering into a contract with the state and each other

so yes, let religious institutions handle the religious end of it and the state handle the legal end if it
 
apple0154 said:
My point is equality. If everyone is equal before the law then the law should apply equally to everyone. If two things are the same it's illogical to refer to them by different names. If marriage and a civil contract between two homosexuals are supposed to be the same then call them by the same name. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
Everyone is not equal under the law. Everyone is created equal and then pursues success and happiness their own way.
 
apple0154 said:
Care to elaborate?



Everyone is created equal? Are you insane? Mental and physical abilities/disabilities vary in incredible degrees not to mention into what milieu one is thrown.
Click to expand...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. "
 
Damn Yankee said:
Kindly point out this "history".
Click to expand...

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Now, you can look at this case, with it's precedents, in 1 of 2 ways. Either the SCOTUS was wrong in the first place and just racist that was later corrected by this case, or you can look at it as a case much like the 2nd Amendment is today, where it was something that they didn't want to look at until they absolutely had to, then acquiesced that it is indeed a fundamental right of mankind.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Now, you can look at this case, with it's precedents, in 1 of 2 ways. Either the SCOTUS was wrong in the first place and just racist that was later corrected by this case, or you can look at it as a case much like the 2nd Amendment is today, where it was something that they didn't want to look at until they absolutely had to, then acquiesced that it is indeed a fundamental right of mankind.
Click to expand...

How is marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?
 
Damn Yankee said:
How is marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?
Click to expand...

it is fundamental to our very existence and survival because people wish to develop close, personal, and intimate relationships with other beings. It allows us to thrive emotionally. It prevents the government from denying those relationships that allow us to pursue happiness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top