Jump to content

The conservative case for gay marriage


bullets13

Recommended Posts

I think everyone should be married hell misery loves company right.  

Reminds me of Kinky Friedman's response when he was asked this question when running for governor years back.  It was something to the effect of "hell yes gays should be able to get married.  They have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's unfair to call conservatives hypocritical for supporting taxation, school choices, etc. but objecting to sinful union. Furthermore, I think it's quite degrading to lump same sex marriage (a sinful life style) with other civil rights issues such as race relations, gender equality, etc.

We are on a very slippery slope (possibly blasphemous) to make these types of laws and still continue to claim to be one nation under God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fed gov should have nothing to say about marriage (like so many other things, leave it to the states) if you don't like your state's stance on marriage, work to change it or move.

Should a state be able to rule interracial marriage illegal again?  Was it okay that the Supreme Court made that legal in 1967, or were they overreaching then, too? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's unfair to call conservatives hypocritical for supporting taxation, school choices, etc. but objecting to sinful union. Furthermore, I think it's quite degrading to lump same sex marriage (a sinful life style) with other civil rights issues such as race relations, gender equality, etc.

We are on a very slippery slope (possibly blasphemous) to make these types of laws and still continue to claim to be one nation under God.

I'd be much more concerned about living in a country where religion is able to dictate the rights of those who do not adhere to their beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should a state be able to rule interracial marriage illegal again?  Was it okay that the Supreme Court made that legal in 1967, or were they overreaching then, too? 

Not allowing interracial marriage is a violation of civil rights...not allowing gay marriage is not putting a stamp of approval on deviant behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not allowing interracial marriage is a violation of civil rights...not allowing gay marriage is not putting a stamp of approval on deviant behavior.

 

Unfortunately for those of your belief system, yours opinion has become an antiquated viewpoint.

Edited by bullets13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh well, I'll stick with it...Christianity may be less popular, but that's no reflection on Christ... Only on our culture..

It's legal in most of the civilized world.  You know who is as fanatically against it as conservative Christians, though?  ISIS.  Kinda ironic if you ask me.

Edited by bullets13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's legal in most of the civilized world.  You know who is as fanatically against it as conservative Christians, though?  ISIS.  Kinda ironic if you ask me.

What you don't get is that I simply don't approve of it...don't hate anyone over it or want them to be punished...I simply disagree..

Don't really care that my opinion is antiquated... It is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​Another unfair comparison to label scripture supporting conservatives with hate and discrimination

I'm not talking about scripture supporting conservatives.  I'm talking about the large number of supposed Christians I've seen who are advocating hate and descrimination.  I've seen plenty of Christians who are against gay marriage who are not doing this, but plenty who are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,978
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • Exactly Lum. Right is still right regardless which way the wind blows. 
    • High Point walks it off.  Vandy Whistler headed home!
    • Tomball takes wild 2nd game 8-6. Both teams had 3 E's. Tomball gave up a late lead but first game pitching star Sampson nailed a 3 run homer to push Tomball to victory. 
    • My understanding is that the falsification of records was the crime that he was convicted of… but for it to have been a felony act, it had to have occurred in the furtherance of another criminal act. The prosecution had to first prove that the criminal act of falsifying documents had occurred. IF the jury believed that records were falsified, they were given three possible criminal acts… any one of the three would allow a felony conviction. The instructions stated that for any of the 34 charges, all twelve of the jurors had to agree that records were falsified, but they also had to believe that the records were falsified in the furtherance of at least one other, different crime. Six jurors could believe that Trump was falsifying records to avoid paying taxes… the other six could believe that it was skirt around election laws. The jurors didn’t have to agree on which of the three alleged criminal acts Trump was trying to further by falsifying records, just so long as they agreed that a) the falsification occurred and that it b) occurred to help him cover up another crime (for which he wasn’t charged and never proven to have committed or to have even occurred, for that matter).     Complete pile of crap as a prosecution, in my opinion.     But, we shouldn’t cry if our nominee is the kind of man who bangs porn stars while his wife is at home with the kid, then tries to buy her silence, then breaks the law in regards to falsifying documents to hide the evidence of the coverup.    If you’re wondering why falsifying those records might be illegal, it’s this. Money paid to your attorney for services performed can be deducted from one’s taxes as a legal expense. If the money is paid to a person to settle a personal claim, then the amount would be taxable-the falsification would have been done to avoid taxation. On the other hand, if campaign funds were spent to pay hush money and the records were falsified to hide the violation of campaign laws, then the felony occurred.    The bottom line is this…. They didn’t have enough evidence to indict trump on any of those three things that allegedly happened… but they DID have evidence that the financial records were falsified, so they point at these other acts which can’t be proven to bump the charges on falsification to a felony.    And the reason Trump didn’t take the stand is that he can’t go on the record about whether or not he had sex with Daniels… I’m certain that they can prove it and hang him up on perjury too.    The most delicious irony is this… Trump gave his supporters too much credit for their integrity. He thought they’d turn on him if they found out what he’d done, when in reality they wouldn’t have given a care… Trump’s whole falsifying records and quest for secrecy wasn’t even needed… his followers don’t have moral objections to his sinful acts.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...