The costs of gay marriage

[One Brow]

How about the hurt and pain that your "opinion" has on any segment of the population? Do you care? Meh.

We don't recognize the right to remain unhurt when oppressing other people is required for that lack of hurt.

 

[Scat]

Really, setting an age limit of 55 for the woman requires some additional government resources? What would those be?

If a couple aged 55 or older loses government benefits when they get married do you think there might be some that try and fudge numbers and say they are younger than 55? Who monitors this?

Also, who monitors a marriage so that when the couple both hit 55 they lose said benefits?

Who monitors every marriage to see whether or not one of the participants is infertile?

What happens if a couple doesn't want kids but lie so they get benefits? And how long are they allowed to not have kids before they are deemed ineligible?

Lastly, do you really think that changing the status of what we currently consider marriage is not going to create opportunities for government to grow? Whether gay marriage is made legal, we take away benefits from those that are infertile, old or simply don't children, there will be a growth in government and subsequent spending. If you even try to argue otherwise I've got a nice toy factory at the North Pole I'd like to sell you.

 

[Scat]

We don't recognize the right to remain unhurt when oppressing other people is required for that lack of hurt.

Can you translate this?

 

[margodydek]

Can someone more educated than I explain why the gov't just doesn't appease both sides and get out of the whole marriage game?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Fine by me. If those words reflect your honest opinion, then I have no problem with you offering them.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2013/04/02/unfairly-labeled/

That blog sounds a lot like you, but it misses the point.

You are saying it's not an insult to point out that someone's bigoted actions... but you are totally wrong on your accusations of what bigoted actions are.

This is an example of what you do:

I call you out for being a child abuser, and that you should not be offended because it is not an insult if I am pointing out the truth.
How would you feel, you would probably like to defend yourself.
Then I go on to describe how you didn't let your kid have something they really wanted, and that is abuse.

Would that fit your definition of abuse, and make it so you agree with my assessment?

You are using words incorrectly to describe somebody in a negative way, then saying they should not be offended by it because you are only describing their actions..... when you are way off and out of line.
That blog of yours is just playing with words as well. Anybody that is called something offensive, especially incorrectly would want to defend themselves and yet that blog you follow gives off the impression that anyone that is called a racist should accept it because of course their actions are racist because someone else said they are. It's a bunch of hogwash, and word games.

 

[margodydek]

I think most of us see that the definition of marriage will eventually be changed. With that in mind, does anyone have the scoop on what the next "evolution" will be? Us conservatives are just wondering what we're going to be called ignorant bigots for next.

 

[margodydek]

That blog sounds a lot like you, but it misses the point.

You are saying it's not an insult to point out that someone's bigoted actions... but you are totally wrong on your accusations of what bigoted actions are.

This is an example of what you do:

I call you out for being a child abuser, and that you should not be offended because it is not an insult if I am pointing out the truth.
How would you feel, you would probably like to defend yourself.
Then I go on to describe how you didn't let your kid have something they really wanted, and that is abuse.

Would that fit your definition of abuse, and make it so you agree with my assessment?

You are using words incorrectly to describe somebody in a negative way, then saying they should not be offended by it because you are only describing their actions..... when you are way off and out of line.
That blog of yours is just playing with words as well. Anybody that is called something offensive, especially incorrectly would want to defend themselves and yet that blog you follow gives off the impression that anyone that is called a racist should accept it because of course their actions are racist because someone else said they are. It's a bunch of hogwash, and word games.

It's a simple bullying tactic.

 

[Scat]

https://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/real_bullies_the_homosexuality_is_normal_movement.html

Think of us as crew members on the starship Enterprise of the Star Trek TV show, boldly going where no one has gone before. Folks, this is what it feels like challenging the Homosexuality Is Normal Movement. It is extremely dangerous.

Homosexual activists attempt to humiliate and politically destroy anyone who dares even criticize their agenda. Meanwhile, the MSM (mainstream media) casts us who believe marriage should remain between one man and one woman as the aggressors, as hate-filled villains.

Have the Homosexuality Is Normal Movement stolen our kids? Despicably, while we were not looking, homosexual activists sneaked their agenda in the back doors of our elementary schools, indoctrinating our kids early. Unquestionably, lack of access to your child for indoctrination contributes to the Left's hatred for home schools and their relentless attempts to close them down.

Here is another example of homosexual activists' in-your-face, aggressive indoctrination of our kids. A Massachusetts charter school, grades 7-12, will host a production of the play "The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told," a retelling of the biblical story of Genesis with gay characters. Keep in mind, folks, that American schools have a cow when a kid brings a Bible or wears a t-shirt with religious, patriotic, or U.S. Military images. And yet, this school gleefully hosts a play which blasphemes Christianity while promoting homosexuality.
Our forty-year-old son and twenty-year-old granddaughter support homosexual marriage. Their attitude is What's the big deal? It is only fair that gays be allowed to marry. America's youths are parroting the liberals' argument that opposition to same-sex marriage is discriminatory and bigoted. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, support for gay marriage is at 65 percent among those 18 to 29 years old. The gay marriage approval rating is probably even higher among high school kids.

A twenty-something-year-old Christian youth pastor picked me up from the airport in California. Justifying his support of same-sex marriage, he said, "God does not care who we love." Wow, I could hardly believe my ears. This young man, who claimed to be a minister of God, chose to ignore the Bible and spout the liberal pop-culture spin.
From cooking shows to home improvement and everything in between, it has become difficult to watch TV without the Homosexuality Is Normal agenda being forced down your throat. If you do not believe that these people are outrageously aggressive, listen to this. The Green Street United Methodist Church will not perform heterosexual marriages until gays can marry.

Folks, I have dear friends and beloved relatives who are homosexual. I am loving and kind to their mates. My 85-year-old dad has been a Christian pastor over 50 years. Dad said he loves the homosexuals in his life, but they know where he stands on this topic, which is the biblical view.

Dad's tolerance is not enough to please the aggressive Homosexuality Is Normal Movement bullying America today. They seek to politically bend Dad's arm behind his back, forcing him to declare homosexuality normal, against his faith.

My point is, homosexual activists are extremely aggressive while portraying themselves as innocent victims of an intolerant society. In reality, we who believe in traditional values are the ones being bullied. The MSM gang vilifies anyone who dares to stand up for traditional marriage. Come hell or high water, they are going to make us embrace homosexuality as being normal by severely punishing those who refuse to comply.

And will someone please tell me why homosexual activists are so hell-bent on forcing Christian institutions to betray their faith by embracing the homosexual agenda? Homosexual activists have sued the Boy Scouts of America and launched a war on the Catholic Church.

No one is opposing homosexuals doing their own thing. Rather than aggressively trying to infiltrate the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church, why not form their own Fabulous Scouts of America and the Church of If It Feels Good, Do It and leave Christian institutions be?

Christian institutions are simply saying you cannot come into our house and force us to change the rules - especially when those rules come from God. And what is the MSM's response to Christian institutions defending their religious freedom? The MSM campaigns to brand the Boy Scouts of America and the Catholic Church intolerant haters. We are living in crazy, insidious, evil times, folks.

The Homosexuality Is Normal Movement takes no prisoners - not even new Pope Francis. They have already begun finding fault with him because he is against gay marriage and gay adoption. Question: will homosexual activists get away with branding the pope a hater?

The Homosexuality Is Normal Movement is not made up of passive, well-meaning victims simply seeking tolerance and their place in the sun. They are relentless, viscious, and hell-bent on forcing all of us, particularly Christians, to say their behavior is normal.

 

[Stoked]

How about religions just start calling their members "covenanted", so the US doesn't have to use a different word for the government recognition than every other English-speaking country?

I guess that would work in theory but I prefer the government getting out of the business of marriage.

Also are you suggesting "covenanted" from religions and "marriage" from the government?

 

[Stoked]

If a couple aged 55 or older loses government benefits when they get married do you think there might be some that try and fudge numbers and say they are younger than 55? Who monitors this?

Also, who monitors a marriage so that when the couple both hit 55 they lose said benefits?

Who monitors every marriage to see whether or not one of the participants is infertile?

What happens if a couple doesn't want kids but lie so they get benefits? And how long are they allowed to not have kids before they are deemed ineligible?

Lastly, do you really think that changing the status of what we currently consider marriage is not going to create opportunities for government to grow? Whether gay marriage is made legal, we take away benefits from those that are infertile, old or simply don't children, there will be a growth in government and subsequent spending. If you even try to argue otherwise I've got a nice toy factory at the North Pole I'd like to sell you.

This is already a possibility. If a widow remarries before age 60 (say 59 and 11 months) than she losses widows benefits from her deceased spouse. Granted she can claim benefits on her current spouse after so many (9 or 12) months of marriage to her current spouse. We use these cool things called B.C.s

 

[Stoked]

Can someone more educated than I explain why the gov't just doesn't appease both sides and get out of the whole marriage game?

Because that would be logical and require people actually interested in gettting things solved in D.C. I do not see that and not have for years.

 

[nightmare3983]

That blog sounds a lot like you, but it misses the point.

You are saying it's not an insult to point out that someone's bigoted actions... but you are totally wrong on your accusations of what bigoted actions are.

This is an example of what you do:

I call you out for being a child abuser, and that you should not be offended because it is not an insult if I am pointing out the truth.
How would you feel, you would probably like to defend yourself.
Then I go on to describe how you didn't let your kid have something they really wanted, and that is abuse.

Would that fit your definition of abuse, and make it so you agree with my assessment?

You are using words incorrectly to describe somebody in a negative way, then saying they should not be offended by it because you are only describing their actions..... when you are way off and out of line.
That blog of yours is just playing with words as well. Anybody that is called something offensive, especially incorrectly would want to defend themselves and yet that blog you follow gives off the impression that anyone that is called a racist should accept it because of course their actions are racist because someone else said they are. It's a bunch of hogwash, and word games.

But Crommunist says that being described inaccurately isn't being insulted. Besides, in most cases Crommunist has seen the person being accused of misogyn or racism was actually doing something wrong. On a positive note, reading this blog explains a lot about One Brow. He has either: spent WAY too much time reading Crommunist's blog, or he actually is Crommunist.

 

[colton]

Nice blog.

I just googled "wrong side of history logical fallacy", I think, and that was the first link that came up. Haven't read any of the blog entries besides that one.

 

[moevillini]

Without additional government resources to weed out those who are infertile, too old or simply don't want kids, it is reasonable to assume that a hetero marriage may result in a pregnancy. If your solution is to start a new program to monitor all hetero married couples to determine if they are fertile is a waste of money and resources. A gay couple is not getting pregnant. Period.

Simple. You just don't issue a marriage license if the woman is over the age of 45. No new program needed at all. She can enter into a civil union or whatever you want to call it.

 

[colton]

Your explanation for your position is just as obnoxious as OB's. Even though I agree with OB, he's obviously not getting through to you, as you are not to him. I get your statements on what you believe, I think, and your responses to inquiry boggle my mind.

Guess I didn't have much time and was in a bad mood. Plus I've had discussions like this with OB before and they are always pointless.

Responding with simply, "No your wrong." with absolutely no explanation makes no sense.

Well, sure. That's poor grammar. ;-)

OB has been very polite IMO in this discussion. I don't think you have at all.

You think it's polite of him to call me a bigot?? Especially when the only proof he offered was a definition of the word "intolerant"?

In fact, in any discussion that involves the slightest criticism of the Mormon religion you turn into the biggest jerk on this board.

Well, I know lots of nonMormon board members who would disagree with you. And where in this thread have I said *anything* about Mormonism. In fact, I'm pretty sure I haven't said anything at all that has been church related.

That aside, I commend you on admitting your intolerance. Hopefully, one day you won't be so proud of it.

Is there anything you are intolerant of? I suspect there many things in that category, and you are probably proud of not being tolerant of them as well. No?

 

[The Thriller]

As a utahn, I just don't understand the urgency to define marriage and stop gay marriage when we aren't even enforcing laws against polygamy. Why not enforce our existing laws before creating new ones?

 

[One Brow]

If a couple aged 55 or older loses government benefits when they get married do you think there might be some that try and fudge numbers and say they are younger than 55? Who monitors this?

The IRS and/or SSA, which already track ages for a variety of other purposes.

Also, who monitors a marriage so that when the couple both hit 55 they lose said benefits?

The benefits would not be claimable. There is no active taking needed.

Who monitors every marriage to see whether or not one of the participants is infertile?

I don't recall suggesting that.

What happens if a couple doesn't want kids but lie so they get benefits? And how long are they allowed to not have kids before they are deemed ineligible?

What happens if a gay couple wants kids? Do they then get all the benefits you want for straight couples?

Lastly, do you really think that changing the status of what we currently consider marriage is not going to create opportunities for government to grow?

Do go on. What part of government grows from recognizing gay marriage?

 

[One Brow]

Can you translate this?

Yes. You don't have a right to avoid being hurt, if the hurt is seeing other people get married.

 

[One Brow]

Can someone more educated than I explain why the gov't just doesn't appease both sides and get out of the whole marriage game?

Too many politicians would be worried that taking away all the benefits of marriage would lose them elections.

 

[colton]

What, I said, precisely, was that the arguments were identical in form to those used against interracial marriage. I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand the importance of "in form" to that statement.

Well, I didn't, I guess, but I'll try to now.

So, which claim do you think did not appear in the same form? Certainly, people claimed that interracial marriages couldn't produce fruitful progeny...

Let's just stop with that one. Do you have evidence for that? I find myself skeptical that it's true.

Actually, even if you do have evidence that someone made that claim, I still fail to see how that is relevant. If finding a single individual who made a patently false claim is sufficient to say that "the arguments were identical in form", then you can say "the arguments were identical in form" about practically ANYTHING.

I appreciate that you recognize arguments in that form are not sound arguments against interracial marriage. I think one day, you'll realize that arguments in that form are no more sound against homosexual marriage.

How is that argument not sound against homosexual marriage? Whereas that statement is patently false for interracial marriage, it's patently true for homosexual unions.

You made two attempts at providing this, both in your first post in this thread, from what I can tell. One was factually inaccurate (many gay couple are indeed very interested in raising children)

I didn't say gay couples were not interested in raising children, although I can see how my remarks could be taken that way. I said:

My view, short take: Marriage is wrapped up in the concept of heterosexual sex and child bearing/raising. Evidence for this is vast. For example, infertility is one of the possible grounds for divorce in many states. Lack of [heterosexual] consummation is grounds for an annulment in many states. The reason I cannot marry my sister or my daughter is because of the possibility of conceiving a child. I could go on and on.

What homosexuals want is not related to any of that. They want SOME of what a marriage is, but by legal precedent and definition, not EVERYTHING of what a marriage is.

I don't have time to expound on that a lot, but basically I'm saying that a homosexual union is fundamentally different than a heterosexual one. This is so obvious, it's not even debatable. As Scat said earlier in the thread,

Without additional government resources to weed out those who are infertile, too old or simply don't want kids, it is reasonable to assume that a hetero marriage may result in a pregnancy. If your solution is to start a new program to monitor all hetero married couples to determine if they are fertile is a waste of money and resources. A gay couple is not getting pregnant. Period.

Your turn: does being bigoted mean you have to act like Archie Bunker? Can you be a bigot and still be a warm, caring person who only wishes well for people?

No, probably not. At least not by the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition that I posted earlier in the thread.

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

It doesn't say "hatred or intolerance", it says "hatred and intolerance". Big difference.

What would the difference be between your position on gay marriage and the position of a bigot?

Not sure how that is at all relevant. To paraphrase Niven's 16th law, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niven's_laws, no position on any matter is so noble that it can afford to be judged by its weakest member. To Godwin our discussion, if a Nazi sympathizer happens to have the same opinion on a topic as you, does that make you a Nazi sympathizer?

edit: sorry, I just noticed I mislabeled the dictionary quote as a One Brow quote.