Todd Young did not waste any time in proving his continued worthlessness

[1nderbeard]

Notwithstanding the religious arguments, I have grave concern over the "recognition" clauses in the bill. Gay people can do what they want, and they can dispose of their property however they want.
But when the government tells me or my church I/It must recognize a homosexual union because it's encoded in federal law, I have a big problem with that. Make no mistake about it, that's where this is headed.

I regret ever having supported Todd Young publicly.

 

[Bugzilla]

I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with him. I agree. Their sinfulness will be their downfall, not mine. Love the sinner, not the sin.

My only beef is the use of the word Marriage. I see no reason two committed loving individuals shouldnt get the same tax benefits and other things like crisis access to hospital rooms reserved for family. My Coworker Al who is in a lifelong committed relationship with his partner Steve Should have the same ability to be by his partner's bedside in his final days/hours just like my wife and I do.

Just dont call it Marriage because thats between a man and a woman.

Compromise no more. What were the whole civil union crap supposed to remedy. The left is never satisfied.

 

[Leo]

Notwithstanding the religious arguments, I have grave concern over the "recognition" clauses in the bill. Gay people can do what they want, and they can dispose of their property however they want.
But when the government tells me or my church I/It must recognize a homosexual union because it's encoded in federal law, I have a big problem with that. Make no mistake about it, that's where this is headed.

I regret ever having supported Todd Young publicly.

I agree.

There are three spheres of power and authority. The home, the government and Faith. When the government tries to supercede authority in the home or in the church, they are outside of their sphere and I will not submit. When the church supercedes authority in the government they are wrong. (not to be confused with CITIZENS who are religious exercising their civil rights)

We have already seen scores of court challenges where practicing homosexuals have sued to be teachers in private schools and other private entities.

It never stops at "just live and let live".

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I always thought the marriage fixation among homosexuals was odd.

The whole marriage thing was designed by God Almighty and is the moral code for those that fear God. Since the homosexual lifestyle is forbidden in the scriptures, those who practice it clearly reject God's rule in life. Why would they want to participate in a marriage ritual created by the same God they reject?

I had a homosexual explain at great lengths about "legal" rights. Like medical decisions at the hospital and property rights. The claim is that without legal marriage those things cannot ba accomplished. The argument does not hold water. I have been power of attorney for an elderly person that was not related in any way. The car I am driving is from a power of attorney transaction. Lawyers know how to make that happen pretty easily. I have also been the executor of a will for a person who was not a relative. If those documents are too difficult, the homosexual marriage folks will really not like divorce court with alimony.

I reiterate that marriage was not "designed by God Almighty."

The desire for humans to pair off is innate and existed prior to the establishment of any of the world's religions. As man became more civilized he recognized the advantages of formalizing the process. Christianity established rules for its followers, as did other religions. These rules do NOT apply to everyone, but only to those who CHOOSE to follow them.

I don't care what it's called, marriage, civil union or whatever. But we cannot call ourselves a free country unless we are free to marry another consenting adult.

 

[bobzilla]

"Two men engaging in sterile intercouse while destroying each others anuses is clearly not marriage."

I readily admit that I don't understand it. But as things stand now it is marriage, but more importantly, it does not harm me or anyone else here.

A personal philosophy of mine that has served me well for many years is that I mind my own business, and I do not harm anyone who is not trying to harm me.

This. Why does anyone care what two men do behind closed doors? Is it hurting you? Are they making you watch them? (royal "you" in use here) My best friend is gay, has been in a committed relationship for many years. Why is he not allowed the same benefits as the wife and I?

I'm not one for labels but this screams homophobic in a serious way.

 

[Leo]

Genesis 2:18 is the earliest recording of people pairing up that I have ever read.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I reiterate that marriage was not "designed by God Almighty."

The desire for humans to pair off is innate and existed prior to the establishment of any of the world's religions. As man became more civilized he recognized the advantages of formalizing the process. Christianity established rules for its followers, as did other religions. These rules do NOT apply to everyone, but only to those who CHOOSE to follow them.

I don't care what it's called, marriage, civil union or whatever. But we cannot call ourselves a free country unless we are free to marry another consenting adult.

Well, from a believer's perspective that innate desire was designed by God. And I'm pretty sure that religion has been around as long as human beings have.

But I wouldn't expect an atheist to agree with me on either of those two points, so unless we're going to jack this thread and turn it into a debate over the existence of God, I think we'll just have to leave those points aside for the moment. As I see it, they are irrelevant to the question at hand.

The trouble is, the law in question here is not about making sure that people are free to marry whomever they wish. People are already free to do whatever the heck they want with another consenting adult: there are no laws anywhere in this country forbidding it. Rather, this new law is about making sure you and I are NOT free to exercise our beliefs regarding marriage, and instead force us to acknowledge and participate in another person's definition of marriage.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Well, from a believer's perspective that innate desire was designed by God. And I'm pretty sure that religion has been around as long as human beings have.

But I wouldn't expect an atheist to agree with me on either of those two points, so unless we're going to jack this thread and turn it into a debate over the existence of God, I think we'll just have to leave those points aside for the moment. As I see it, they are irrelevant to the question at hand.

The trouble is, the law in question here is not about making sure that people are free to marry whomever they wish. People are already free to do whatever the heck they want with another consenting adult: there are no laws anywhere in this country forbidding it. Rather, this new law is about making sure you and I are NOT free to exercise our beliefs regarding marriage, and instead force us to acknowledge and participate in another person's definition of marriage.

I am in full agreement that no one should be forced to participate in a gay (or any other kind) of marriage, such as those people who have become involved in litigation for refusing to supply a wedding cake, etc.

But marriage is a legal relationship, and must be acknowledged.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well, from a believer's perspective that innate desire was designed by God. And I'm pretty sure that religion has been around as long as human beings have.

But I wouldn't expect an atheist to agree with me on either of those two points, so unless we're going to jack this thread and turn it into a debate over the existence of God, I think we'll just have to leave those points aside for the moment. As I see it, they are irrelevant to the question at hand.

The trouble is, the law in question here is not about making sure that people are free to marry whomever they wish. People are already free to do whatever the heck they want with another consenting adult: there are no laws anywhere in this country forbidding it. Rather, this new law is about making sure you and I are NOT free to exercise our beliefs regarding marriage, and instead force us to acknowledge and participate in another person's definition of marriage.

Yeah, when you study the Bible you realize marriage is a pale reflection of the ultimate marriage of the joining to us to him. Unbelievers do not see it. Even a lot of self professing Christian’s do not.

There’s a legitimate argument that can sympathize with regarding the extent the state should involve itself in this institution. But this bill is not about that.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

My best friend is gay, has been in a committed relationship for many years. Why is he not allowed the same benefits as the wife and I?

But marriage is a legal relationship, and must be acknowledged.

I have a question: from a non-religious perspective, what is marriage, and why does the state have an interest in defining it?

bobzilla asked why a gay couple should not be allowed the same benefits as a heterosexual couple; I'd like to turn the question around and ask why any couple should be guaranteed benefits by the state?

I'm assuming both of you can think of situations where two consenting adults who commit to live with each other should not be granted marriage benefits?

For instance, suppose two brothers who have similar jobs, interests, etc, want to live in the same house and share expenses (it's a purely practical relationship, I'm not talking about incest or anything here.) If they are both committed to this relationship long-term, should the state call that a marriage, and if not, why?

 

[bobzilla]

I have a question: from a non-religious perspective, what is marriage, and why does the state have an interest in defining it?

bobzilla asked why a gay couple should not be allowed the same benefits as a heterosexual couple; I'd like to turn the question around and ask why any couple should be guaranteed benefits by the state?

I'm assuming both of you can think of situations where two consenting adults who commit to live with each other should not be granted marriage benefits?

For instance, suppose two brothers who have similar jobs, interests, etc, want to live in the same house and share expenses (it's a purely practical relationship, I'm not talking about incest or anything here.) If they are both committed to this relationship long-term, should the state call that a marriage, and if not, why?

look, I'd love to live in a world where the govt was limited and we had our constitutional freedoms. But we don't. Health insurance, retirement benefits etc have different costs and rates between single and married. Do I want it to be that way? Nope. But that's the reality we live in. We already gave in for that long long ago and burying your head in the sand wishing it wasn't true doesn't change reality.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I have a question: from a non-religious perspective, what is marriage, and why does the state have an interest in defining it?

bobzilla asked why a gay couple should not be allowed the same benefits as a heterosexual couple; I'd like to turn the question around and ask why any couple should be guaranteed benefits by the state?

I'm assuming both of you can think of situations where two consenting adults who commit to live with each other should not be granted marriage benefits?

For instance, suppose two brothers who have similar jobs, interests, etc, want to live in the same house and share expenses (it's a purely practical relationship, I'm not talking about incest or anything here.) If they are both committed to this relationship long-term, should the state call that a marriage, and if not, why?

Why are we limiting ”marriage” to 2 “consenting adults”? Yeah, what is marriage? What most who support homosexual marriage mean is expanding the definition by one additional type of 2-person marriage. Most, in effect, want to restrict who can be married by their own definition.

But if we’re to be truly a free country, we must allow any combination and permutation of people and things to be married that say they are married. If the government has no business saying who can be married, it has no business saying who can be married.

 

[buckwacker]

I am in full agreement that no one should be forced to participate in a gay (or any other kind) of marriage, such as those people who have become involved in litigation for refusing to supply a wedding cake, etc.

But marriage is a legal relationship, and must be acknowledged.

It's sort of like saying we should all be kind, but you don't just invite the homeless drifter knocking on your door for help to sleep under the same roof as your wife and kids.

It's nice to say everyone should be treated equally and "have the same rights", but this group has proved over and again that their goal isn't equality; it's forcing everyone who disagrees with their perverse lifestyle to accept and promote it, or they'll use social and government pressure to destroy your life if you refuse to bend. If you hadn't noticed, they target principled religious people exclusively. And I shouldn't say religious because they really only target Christians; Muslims seem to be inexplicably left to their "bigotry", strange huh? If you say it doesn't affect anyone else, you're either willfully blind or wholly uninformed. As has been alluded to, this movement is just another Trojan horse being used to destroy the Judeo-Christian social fabric of the West in an effort to insure its demise.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I have a question: from a non-religious perspective, what is marriage, and why does the state have an interest in defining it?

bobzilla asked why a gay couple should not be allowed the same benefits as a heterosexual couple; I'd like to turn the question around and ask why any couple should be guaranteed benefits by the state?

I'm assuming both of you can think of situations where two consenting adults who commit to live with each other should not be granted marriage benefits?

For instance, suppose two brothers who have similar jobs, interests, etc, want to live in the same house and share expenses (it's a purely practical relationship, I'm not talking about incest or anything here.) If they are both committed to this relationship long-term, should the state call that a marriage, and if not, why?

Call it a marriage? I really don't care.

But if two brothers wanted to do this, say for one of them to get on the other's health insurance or something, I have no issue with it.

It still comes down to the same ultimate truth that should govern any law in a society that values personal freedom: this does not HARM me.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

look, I'd love to live in a world where the govt was limited and we had our constitutional freedoms. But we don't. Health insurance, retirement benefits etc have different costs and rates between single and married. Do I want it to be that way? Nope. But that's the reality we live in. We already gave in for that long long ago and burying your head in the sand wishing it wasn't true doesn't change reality.

I understand that, and my question wasn't meant to take things in the direction of beating the dead horse of "the government shouldn't be involved in marriage." I was just legitimately curious where you would draw the line at, knowing that the government is involved in marriage.

You're logic is (if I understand correctly) "If Joe and Mary get X benefits for living together in a committed relationship, then Jim and Steve should, too." I'm just wondering if this extends to situations where Jim and Steve are brothers? What about polygamous relationships; can you give me a non-religious reason why three consenting adults don't deserve marriage benefits?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

But if two brothers wanted to do this, say for one of them to get on the other's health insurance or something, I have no issue with it.

But what if the employer has a definition of marriage that is traditional? If the state now comes in and says to the employer: ”you cannot do that”, is that an infringement on the employer’s rights?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

It's sort of like saying we should all be kind, but you don't just invite the homeless drifter knocking on your door for help to sleep under the same roof as your wife and kids.

It's nice to say everyone should be treated equally and "have the same rights", but this group has proved over and again that their goal isn't equality; it's forcing everyone who disagrees with their perverse lifestyle to accept and promote it, or they'll use social and government pressure to destroy your life if you refuse to bend. If you hadn't noticed, they target principled religious people exclusively. And I shouldn't say religious because they really only target Christians; Muslims seem to be inexplicably left to their "bigotry", strange huh? If you say it doesn't affect anyone else, you're either willfully blind or wholly uninformed. As has been alluded to, this movement is just another Trojan horse being used to destroy the Judeo-Christian social fabric of the West in an effort to insure its demise.

Are there militant gays who want to get in our faces about this? Of course, just like anti-gunners.

But I have friends who are gay married couples, and I even served as a combination best man/ring bearer for two lady friends of mine when they got married.

The vast majority of these folks have no desire whatsoever to interfere with anyone else. They just want to live their lives, same as you.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Call it a marriage? I really don't care.

But if two brothers wanted to do this, say for one of them to get on the other's health insurance or something, I have no issue with it.

It still comes down to the same ultimate truth that should govern any law in a society that values personal freedom: this does not HARM me.

Perhaps I misinterpreted something you said earlier. When you said "But marriage is a legal relationship, and must be acknowledged." I took that to mean that you believe the government should require organizations and individuals to acknowledge marriages recognized by the state.

However, if this is not the case, and you believe that the government has no business telling any employer, Church, or individual, what they must or must not recognize as a marriage, then I think I can at least see your perspective, even if I don't fully agree with it.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

But what if the employer has a definition of marriage that is traditional? If the state now comes in and says to the employer: ”you cannot do that”, is that an infringement on the employer’s rights?

I don't think that any employer can create his own definition of marriage. What if a Jewish employer decrees that legal marriage only exists between Jews?

 

[Ziggidy]

But we cannot call ourselves a free country unless we are free to marry another consenting adult.

So that is the basis for freedom in the USA? Interesting.

Turn the heat up on the water just a tad more.......we've almost got the frog cooked.