Santorum

#276
#276
nbakerld said:
It depends on the reasoning. If we're being honest here, the only reasoning you've really given me for your opposition is that you fear beastiality, and that leads me to believe you're irrational, not necessarily bigoted.
Click to expand...

I told you that was just an example of what it could lead to, that is not my reasoning. We are supposed to reproduce, people of the same sex can't reproduce. I just believe marriage should be 1 man and 1 woman no exceptions.
 
#278
#278
volfanjustin said:
I told you that was just an example of what it could lead to, that is not my reasoning. We are supposed to reproduce, people of the same sex can't reproduce. I just believe marriage should be 1 man and 1 woman no exceptions.
Click to expand...

This is where question of bigotry comes in (and definite close-mindedness). Why do you believe that? Yeah, they can't reproduce, but why does that have anything to do with the question of marriage? There's a logic gap in your thought process. Or you haven't explained sufficiently why reproductive ability (when it comes to homosexuals) comes into play.
 
#279
#279
lawgator1 said:
Even if they do so-called "big government" or "government intrusion" things?
Click to expand...

Yes. When the federal government becomes intrusive, we are all ****ed. When Tennessee's state government becomes intrusive the solution is simple....move to Georgia.
 
#280
#280
lawgator1 said:
Even if they do so-called "big government" or "government intrusion" things?
Click to expand...

I don't see it as intrusion or big government. Like in California the people voted (twice I think) to ban same sex marriage, that's how it should be.
 
#281
#281
volfanjustin said:
I don't see it as intrusion or big government. Like in California the people voted (twice I think) to ban same sex marriage, that's how it should be.
Click to expand...

Let's just pretend for a second here that the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment applies to same sex marriage, making it constitutionally illegal to ban it.

You'd be okay with states nullifying parts of the constitution so long as a majority voted it was okay?
 
#282
#282
milohimself said:
Let's just pretend for a second here that the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment applies to same sex marriage, making it constitutionally illegal to ban it.

You'd be okay with states nullifying parts of the constitution so long as a majority voted it was okay?
Click to expand...

No I wouldn't. But I don't believe the EP clause protects gay marriage. So we can't just pretend it means something you wish I would.
 
#284
#284
volfanjustin said:
No I wouldn't. But I don't believe the EP clause protects gay marriage. So we can't just pretend it means something you wish I would.
Click to expand...

There is a distinction between protecting gay marriage and the illegality of banning it.

And that seems to be the prevailing interpretation of it so far.
 
#288
#288
volfanjustin said:
I told you that was just an example of what it could lead to, that is not my reasoning. We are supposed to reproduce, people of the same sex can't reproduce. I just believe marriage should be 1 man and 1 woman no exceptions.
Click to expand...

Here's my take: I don't care if two gays want to get married. It's none of my business first and foremost. They aren't bothering me and it's not my place to judge others' personal and private behavior.
 
#290
#290
So, those of you that think this should be a state/religion issue (marriage all together), how do you feel about churches that are willing marry homosexuals?
 
#291
#291
There are a couple issues floating here - one is gay marriage and the other is being gay in general being considered "wrong". My take on both VFJ and Santorum is that they believe being gay is "wrong" - naturally then, they would be against gay marriage.

I'd like to know why being gay in and of itself is wrong? It is not a choice.
 
#294
#294
volinbham said:
There are a couple issues floating here - one is gay marriage and the other is being gay in general being considered "wrong". My take on both VFJ and Santorum is that they believe being gay is "wrong" - naturally then, they would be against gay marriage.

I'd like to know why being gay in and of itself is wrong? It is not a choice.
Click to expand...

First, I think it's fine if people consider homosexuality to be morally wrong, but I think it is immoral to impose your value judgment on others. I don't think banning choices you don't like is consistent with Christian teachings.

To me, whether it's a choice or not, it doesn't matter. I think dealing with that question sidetracks us from the real issue, individual freedom.
 
#295
#295
volfanjustin said:
I told you that was just an example of what it could lead to, that is not my reasoning. We are supposed to reproduce, people of the same sex can't reproduce. I just believe marriage should be 1 man and 1 woman no exceptions.
Click to expand...

what about a man and a woman who have been married for 50 years but have never had, or even wanted children?

Would you seek to ban sterile people from getting married?

reproduction of the species will occur with or without the "blessing" conferred by a piece of paper
 
#296
#296
nbakerld said:
First, I think it's fine if people consider homosexuality to be morally wrong, but I think it is immoral to impose your value judgment on others. I don't think banning choices you don't like is consistent with Christian teachings.

To me, whether it's a choice or not, it doesn't matter. I think dealing with that question sidetracks us from the real issue, individual freedom.
Click to expand...
The problem obviously is the question of how the state protects a freedom that people can't even agree exists. Is there anywhere other than pursuit of happiness in the US Constitution that remotely would address gay marriage. Maybe the part about all other issues being addresses by the states.
 
#297
#297
GAVol said:
The problem obviously is the question of how the state protects a freedom that people can't even agree exists. Is there anywhere other than pursuit of happiness in the US Constitution that remotely would address gay marriage. Maybe the part about all other issues being addresses by the states.
Click to expand...

Declaration*

But I agree with your larger point.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top