Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 57

Thread: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

  1. #1
    Senior Member AJBIGJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    988
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    I've been floating the idea for some time now, but I'm happy to see it might be growing some legs.

    In principle, instead of changing the government's definition of marriage, why not change the government's role in "defining" marriage? (So it doesn't have to)

    Looks like it may be a viable approach for the future, but I imagine the Rick Santorum variety of Republicans will be the hardest sell.

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/03/4175...ts-a-good-one/
    "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." ~ Thomas Jefferson

    It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
    James Madison

  2. #2
    Junior Member ThaBufe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Montgomery, AL
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    I have been wondering for a very long time why the federal government has any involvment whatsoever in marriage in the first place. Sounds like a good plan to me.

  3. #3
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)

    Re: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by AJBIGJ View Post
    I've been floating the idea for some time now, but I'm happy to see it might be growing some legs.

    In principle, instead of changing the government's definition of marriage, why not change the government's role in "defining" marriage? (So it doesn't have to)

    Looks like it may be a viable approach for the future, but I imagine the Rick Santorum variety of Republicans will be the hardest sell.
    Funny you mention this as someone yesterday posted about the governments recent move to not make any decisions regarding anything (which is a good thing, except that it still continues to grow).

    The failure to pass a budget so that a decision didn't have to be made on cuts. One other thing was mentioned as well (can't remember) where something was allowed to default to a position so that congress wouldn't have to make a decision.

    This is another in line with that, and I think it's a very good thing. Government steps out of marriage altogether. I think the end result should be that as long as all involved are consenting adults then who cares? Whether it's same sex, several "spouses", or something else, if everyone in the relationship agrees to be in it, so bet it.

    I'd like to point out that this doesn't mean I have to like the way someone lives, or agree with it. I still have the right to voice my opinion that marriage is between one man and one woman. My beliefs and choices should be respected just as the beliefs and choices of those who choose to go the "nontraditional" route should.

    So to summarize, government stays out (to include benefits for ALL marriages) and lets people do what they are going to do. This way, it doesn't matter who recognizes what. The only people who need to recognize anything are the ones in the relationship. Everything is equal. Nobody is being told what they can't do. Everyone is happy.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)

    Re: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    I agree with everyone here. Marriage should be delegalized. Not outlawed, but delegalized.

    The only reason why marriage exists as a legal status in the first place is so that the government can establish and enforce property laws. The ideas behind those laws are religious-based anyway (for example, in most Christian denominations, divorce is not recognized - therefore you can "separate," but you still have obligations to each other. Alimony exists to enforce that belief).

    Though, if we're honest with ourselves; marriage as a legal status is here to stay.

    I personally believe that if a woman can have an abortion - thus, terminating her own responsibility to take care of a child that she created; then a man should be able to do the same. Not the abortion, but walk away scott-free if he doesn't want to take of the baby. The woman can do it, so why can't the man?

    Should I ever hold my breath on that law ever changing? Someone else can if they want to, but I wouldn't recommend it.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  5. #5
    Senior Member F4CrewChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    San Francisco (Big Surprise)
    Posts
    178
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    The government has been in the marriage business for a long while and I do not see that ever ending--too much money to be made. To those that hold a moralistic position on marriage, the 'marriage neutral' position in the Rand plan would be seen as a loss. While I don't think the government will ever get out of the marriage business, I think the easiest solution to the "problem" of GAy marriage is super-simple: If you don't believe in Gay marriage, don't marry a Gay.

    I'll be around later serving big, hot, steaming cups of mind your own fucking business to anyone who wants to argue about it.

    [IMG] nice-cup-of-STFU by F4CrewChick, on Flickr[/IMG]
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]You giggle every time you say 'cockpit'

    -David Letterman "Top Ten ways to know you might not be ready to join the USAF"

  6. #6
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)

    Re: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by F4CrewChick View Post
    The government has been in the marriage business for a long while and I do not see that ever ending--too much money to be made. To those that hold a moralistic position on marriage, the 'marriage neutral' position in the Rand plan would be seen as a loss. While I don't think the government will ever get out of the marriage business, I think the easiest solution to the "problem" of GAy marriage is super-simple: If you don't believe in Gay marriage, don't marry a Gay.

    I'll be around later serving big, hot, steaming cups of mind your own fucking business to anyone who wants to argue about it.
    I think so far everyone is pretty much agreeing with you, so you may need to hold off on that cup.

  7. #7
    Senior Member TJMAC77SP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,156
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)

    Re: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    I agree with everyone here. Marriage should be delegalized. Not outlawed, but delegalized.

    The only reason why marriage exists as a legal status in the first place is so that the government can establish and enforce property laws. The ideas behind those laws are religious-based anyway (for example, in most Christian denominations, divorce is not recognized - therefore you can "separate," but you still have obligations to each other. Alimony exists to enforce that belief).

    Though, if we're honest with ourselves; marriage as a legal status is here to stay.

    I personally believe that if a woman can have an abortion - thus, terminating her own responsibility to take care of a child that she created; then a man should be able to do the same. Not the abortion, but walk away scott-free if he doesn't want to take of the baby. The woman can do it, so why can't the man?

    Should I ever hold my breath on that law ever changing? Someone else can if they want to, but I wouldn't recommend it.
    Have you picked a sinlge account to post from or will it be the usual multiple accounts? Just wondering.
    ___________________
    Read carefully, think, then write thoughtfully……………………………..

    I don’t have any quotes……you can pick one for yourself

  8. #8
    Senior Member TJMAC77SP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,156
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)

    Re: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by F4CrewChick View Post
    The government has been in the marriage business for a long while and I do not see that ever ending--too much money to be made. To those that hold a moralistic position on marriage, the 'marriage neutral' position in the Rand plan would be seen as a loss. While I don't think the government will ever get out of the marriage business, I think the easiest solution to the "problem" of GAy marriage is super-simple: If you don't believe in Gay marriage, don't marry a Gay.

    I'll be around later serving big, hot, steaming cups of mind your own fucking business to anyone who wants to argue about it.

    Why wasn't 'civil union' good enough? That's a serious question btw. If every state passed a law that allowed same-sex couples to be joined in civil unions and therefore be guaranteed the legal rights historically granted to 'married' heterosexual couples would that be good enough for the gay community?

    I ask because it seemed in at least one state (and I frankly can’t remember which now) there was talk of a civil union law which was rejected by the gay community so since then I have been puzzled since that would seem to meet the stated goals.
    ___________________
    Read carefully, think, then write thoughtfully……………………………..

    I don’t have any quotes……you can pick one for yourself

  9. #9
    Senior Member AJBIGJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    988
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by F4CrewChick View Post
    The government has been in the marriage business for a long while and I do not see that ever ending--too much money to be made. To those that hold a moralistic position on marriage, the 'marriage neutral' position in the Rand plan would be seen as a loss. While I don't think the government will ever get out of the marriage business, I think the easiest solution to the "problem" of GAy marriage is super-simple: If you don't believe in Gay marriage, don't marry a Gay.

    I'll be around later serving big, hot, steaming cups of mind your own fucking business to anyone who wants to argue about it.

    [IMG] nice-cup-of-STFU by F4CrewChick, on Flickr[/IMG]
    I would think that would come down to whether such an idea as this comes to a vote somewhere down the line. Should it actually make it through the conflicted "moral majority" (as it is often labeled), would you support a plan that puts your formal intimate relationship status on an equal footing (legally) with mine? (I imagine this is rhetorical)
    "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." ~ Thomas Jefferson

    It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
    James Madison

  10. #10
    Senior Member F4CrewChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    San Francisco (Big Surprise)
    Posts
    178
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP View Post
    Why wasn't 'civil union' good enough? That's a serious question btw. If every state passed a law that allowed same-sex couples to be joined in civil unions and therefore be guaranteed the legal rights historically granted to 'married' heterosexual couples would that be good enough for the gay community?

    I ask because it seemed in at least one state (and I frankly can’t remember which now) there was talk of a civil union law which was rejected by the gay community so since then I have been puzzled since that would seem to meet the stated goals.
    Serious answer: While this topic has been talked to death here on MTF as well as in the world, the main issue with civil unions vs. marriage are the legal rights and responsibilities. Civil unions simply cannot match up to marriage legally not to mention that clearly it is also a 'second-class' contract. Brown v Board of education strike a bell? "Separate but equal" just ain't. I reiterate, if one doesn't believe in Gay marriage, don't marry a Gay, otherwise STFU, mind your own business and let other get on with their own business of living.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]You giggle every time you say 'cockpit'

    -David Letterman "Top Ten ways to know you might not be ready to join the USAF"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •