rserling
Member
Posts: 52 
Lean: Libertarian
Gender: Male
|
Post by rserling on Aug 29, 2013 4:10:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by John Liberty on Aug 29, 2013 4:15:29 GMT
That guy is a nut! "We should be more like Russia". What kind of patriot uses Russia as a shining example of what America should be?? That's messed up.  |
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorKat on Aug 29, 2013 4:18:11 GMT
I'm at an absolute loss for words... |
|
rserling
Member
Posts: 52
Lean: Libertarian
Gender: Male
|
Post by rserling on Aug 29, 2013 4:24:36 GMT
I read his actual blog, and I'm shocked that this man has listeners.
|
|
|
|
Post by AmazingDomo on Aug 29, 2013 17:30:26 GMT
I read his actual blog, and I'm shocked that this man has listeners. The only people who read his blog are religious extremists that want to convert the world into Christianity. Why should I have to follow Christian values? I'm not a Christian! |
|
|
|
Post by DarkShadow on Sept 3, 2013 2:51:36 GMT
I agree... i've thought about a solution to the problem. I think that marriage needs to be completely reformed. I think that marriage should not be recognized by the government. Basically, if you can find a church (of any religion) that will wed the couple (straight or gay), then let it be done. The reason Christians oppose gay marriage is not because of the legalistic side of it, but because marriage is symbolic for many things in our religion . That being said... the special government benefits can be applied for a couple (married or not) . Truth be told ....a non religious person would have no reason to get married as it is not an issue of morals in their eyes. The main idea is for The government to have no power over marriage or who can apply for the benefits. And of course marriage and the benefits to be seperate things. What do you all think of this idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by docilelion on Sept 4, 2013 16:25:11 GMT
I agree... i've thought about a solution to the problem. I think that marriage needs to be completely reformed. I think that marriage should not be recognized by the government. Basically, if you can find a church (of any religion) that will wed the couple (straight or gay), then let it be done. The reason Christians oppose gay marriage is not because of the legalistic side of it, but because marriage is symbolic for many things in our religion . That being said... the special government benefits can be applied for a couple (married or not) . Truth be told ....a non religious person would have no reason to get married as it is not an issue of morals in their eyes. The main idea is for The government to have no power over marriage or who can apply for the benefits. And of course marriage and the benefits to be seperate things. What do you all think of this idea? But marriage is a government issue just as much as it is a religious issue.... |
|
|
|
Post by DarkShadow on Sept 4, 2013 18:43:26 GMT
I agree... i've thought about a solution to the problem. I think that marriage needs to be completely reformed. I think that marriage should not be recognized by the government. Basically, if you can find a church (of any religion) that will wed the couple (straight or gay), then let it be done. The reason Christians oppose gay marriage is not because of the legalistic side of it, but because marriage is symbolic for many things in our religion . That being said... the special government benefits can be applied for a couple (married or not) . Truth be told ....a non religious person would have no reason to get married as it is not an issue of morals in their eyes. The main idea is for The government to have no power over marriage or who can apply for the benefits. And of course marriage and the benefits to be seperate things. What do you all think of this idea? But marriage is a government issue just as much as it is a religious issue.... I am simply saying it shouldn't be. It would solve our problem.... intstead of Christians blaming the government it places the blame for homosexuality on the Christian community (which is a whole different Topic) . And like I said... any couple can apply for the benefits you can get now ....married or not you can get the benefits. ~DarkShadow |
|
rserling
Member
Posts: 52
Lean: Libertarian
Gender: Male
|
Post by rserling on Sept 4, 2013 22:16:29 GMT
I agree... i've thought about a solution to the problem. I think that marriage needs to be completely reformed. I think that marriage should not be recognized by the government. Basically, if you can find a church (of any religion) that will wed the couple (straight or gay), then let it be done. The reason Christians oppose gay marriage is not because of the legalistic side of it, but because marriage is symbolic for many things in our religion . That being said... the special government benefits can be applied for a couple (married or not) . Truth be told ....a non religious person would have no reason to get married as it is not an issue of morals in their eyes. The main idea is for The government to have no power over marriage or who can apply for the benefits. And of course marriage and the benefits to be seperate things. What do you all think of this idea? But marriage is a government issue just as much as it is a religious issue.... But why SHOULD it be a government issue? |
|
|
|
Post by John Liberty on Sept 5, 2013 0:15:51 GMT
I agree... i've thought about a solution to the problem. I think that marriage needs to be completely reformed. I think that marriage should not be recognized by the government. Basically, if you can find a church (of any religion) that will wed the couple (straight or gay), then let it be done. The reason Christians oppose gay marriage is not because of the legalistic side of it, but because marriage is symbolic for many things in our religion . That being said... the special government benefits can be applied for a couple (married or not) . Truth be told ....a non religious person would have no reason to get married as it is not an issue of morals in their eyes. The main idea is for The government to have no power over marriage or who can apply for the benefits. And of course marriage and the benefits to be seperate things. What do you all think of this idea? But marriage is a government issue just as much as it is a religious issue.... is a custom, ceremony or rite that some couples wish to pursue. Religious marriage is not the subject of the legal controversy; no one is proposing that governments bar religions from supplying religious marriage to same-sex couples. Civil marriage is a legal institution created by governments. It is, in essence, just a bundle of contracts involving the marrying couple, their children and others. A marrying couple gets legal rights and responsibilities about division of property, inheritance, guardianship of children and other issues. The government enforces this bundle of rights and responsibilities. The question is, does the government need to specify a particular bundle of contracts, enforce this bundle and call it “marriage”? The answer is no. If government exits the marriage business, both same-sex and opposite-sex couples would be free to enter private contracts, picking and choosing which ones to sign. Do they plan to have kids? Sign the guardianship contract. Do they need to protect inheritances? Add in that contract. Do they want the whole bundle? No problem. The result would be that opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples would have the same opportunity to live together, write wills, have biological or adopted children, and so on. Nothing in the law would make any distinction based on the gender or sexual preferences. The government could still accomplish its legitimate aims in this area by defining default rules for each component. It could, for example, specify that the biological mother is a child’s only legal parent unless the mother voluntarily gives up that status. This rule might also impose that the biological father is responsible for some percentage of child support. (Governments already have such rules because many children are born outside of wedlock.) Of course, couples who wished to be married could still head off to the church or synagogue. This wouldn’t have any legal implications, it would simply be a private arrangement between the couples and the religious institution performing the ceremony. Neither supporters nor opponents of gay marriage are likely to endorse the privatization of marriage. That’s because both sides want government policy to validate their own views of what constitutes a “legitimate” family. But the best path for achieving equal treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex marriage — the goal of those who support gay marriage — is to remove government provision of opposite-sex marriage, rather than extending it to same-sex marriage. In this arena, as in many others, the way to fix bad policies is by getting rid of them, not by expanding them. |
|
