- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Gay Marriage
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:29 am to Flats
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:29 am to Flats
quote:
I'm discussing the larger issue of legislating morality and whose morality we're going to use.
I would say the safe bet would be to side with the people who morally oppose grown men dressing as provocative women while twerking in the faces of 5 year old children in front of a neon sign that reads "It's not going to lick itself."
0
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:31 am to Azkiger
quote:
No. But I am happy we're not allowing the government to discriminate against something legally deemed a right.
They were never discriminated against. They always had the exact same right to marry someone from the opposite sex as anyone else. Elton John and Freddy Mercury did just that.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:32 am to OBReb6
Gay man here engaged to another man.
I believe the gay marriage issue should have been resolved through tax code reformation leaving it out of the government’s purview.
However, the automatic passage of wealth and property to the spouse would still cause problems.
A major reason gay people pushed for marriage came down to laws regarding the passage of property and wealth.
In many cases, when one partner would die, their family would take the surviving partner to court and contest the will. Citing their Christian beliefs, the Bible, and morality codes, the family would claim that the deceased partner was “seduced” or “coerced” or “tricked” into a homosexual lifestyle. They would ask the court to invalidate the will and, most of the time, the court would oblige. The family would then take the house, all of the money, and all of the property that they had nothing to do with accumulating. The surviving partner would become destitute.
If there was no will, the property and wealth would pass to next of kin, not the partner who had spent a significant part of their lifetime accumulating that wealth with the deceased.
Unfortunately, many families would use religious arguments to steal, in essence, the surviving partner’s rightful inheritance. This practice stoked the animosity between the Church and the gay community even more. Much of the legal argument for gay marriage was rooted in this issue: to ensure that an adult, of right mind and sound body, could pass their property to whoever they wanted.
I believe the gay marriage issue should have been resolved through tax code reformation leaving it out of the government’s purview.
However, the automatic passage of wealth and property to the spouse would still cause problems.
A major reason gay people pushed for marriage came down to laws regarding the passage of property and wealth.
In many cases, when one partner would die, their family would take the surviving partner to court and contest the will. Citing their Christian beliefs, the Bible, and morality codes, the family would claim that the deceased partner was “seduced” or “coerced” or “tricked” into a homosexual lifestyle. They would ask the court to invalidate the will and, most of the time, the court would oblige. The family would then take the house, all of the money, and all of the property that they had nothing to do with accumulating. The surviving partner would become destitute.
If there was no will, the property and wealth would pass to next of kin, not the partner who had spent a significant part of their lifetime accumulating that wealth with the deceased.
Unfortunately, many families would use religious arguments to steal, in essence, the surviving partner’s rightful inheritance. This practice stoked the animosity between the Church and the gay community even more. Much of the legal argument for gay marriage was rooted in this issue: to ensure that an adult, of right mind and sound body, could pass their property to whoever they wanted.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:34 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Stability.
Do you prefer people to be whores?
Do you really think being married keeps gay men from screwing anything that's not nailed down?
You don't know any gay people, do you?
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:35 am to Azkiger
quote:
No. But I am happy we're not allowing the government to discriminate against something legally deemed a right.
You keep ignoring the fact that it's a conditional right, and different states have different conditions. Nobody, I suspect you included, is talking about making it an unconditional right. You just want some conditions and not others, just like everybody else. This isn't about rights, it's about legislating morality.
quote:
Do you get the relevance now?
No, because that's not how it was forced upon the country. SCOTUS did the same thing they did with abortion and created a right that 5 people really wanted to exist. Had they left it alone most states may have passed it by now instead of it being defeated in places like California, just like it was defeated everywhere else.
The method is important to me. You seem to be focused on an "end justifies the means" argument.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:36 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Do you really think being married keeps gay men from screwing
The married gay people I am aware of are no different than any other couple.
They also dont do pride parades, or whorish bar routines.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:36 am to OBReb6
quote:
They were never discriminated against. They always had the exact same right to marry someone from the opposite sex as anyone else.
By this logic disallowing interracial marriage isn't discriminatory, either.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:37 am to bluestem75
quote:
They would ask the court to invalidate the will and, most of the time, the court would oblige.
You're going to have to provide a link before I believe that a court would invalidate an otherwise solid will for basically no reason.
Sorry, I just don't believe it.
I mean, I can believe it happened once or twice, but I don't believe it was a widespread problem as you claim.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:38 am to OBReb6
quote:
Tell me the statistics of people that identify as LGBT, and in what way those statistics have changed over the last 20 years or so
You don’t think the environment has changed in the last twenty years where there are less closeted people?
Not to mention like Alex jones said, they’re turning the frogs gay and coming for us next.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:38 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
The married gay people I am aware of are no different than any other couple.
They also dont do pride parades, or whorish bar routines.
You understand that they are the exception, not the rule, yeah?
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:38 am to Flats
Off to work. I tried to make it as simple as I could.
You're never going to accept it because you're a fundamentalist. That's not a slur, at least not from me. You have a strong bias against gay marriage, which is why you're looking for any crack at which to criticize it. Everything was above board and the vast majority support it.
It's done.
You're never going to accept it because you're a fundamentalist. That's not a slur, at least not from me. You have a strong bias against gay marriage, which is why you're looking for any crack at which to criticize it. Everything was above board and the vast majority support it.
It's done.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:39 am to bluestem75
Would have have still applied under civil union laws? And if so could the laws not have been amended to address it?
Again as I stated earlier, I think the issue is over and am not willing to fight to change it. In principle I don’t have a huge problem with homosexuality or the legally recognized unions either. I just don’t see how to get away from the continued social degradation in ways few could have foreseen (i.e. transgenderism and the like) and how it all flows from culture, and the state recognition of gay marriage was a huge cultural message. I’m not going to pin all of those issues on that decision, but it played a part, and I don’t see any way it could be argued otherwise.
Again as I stated earlier, I think the issue is over and am not willing to fight to change it. In principle I don’t have a huge problem with homosexuality or the legally recognized unions either. I just don’t see how to get away from the continued social degradation in ways few could have foreseen (i.e. transgenderism and the like) and how it all flows from culture, and the state recognition of gay marriage was a huge cultural message. I’m not going to pin all of those issues on that decision, but it played a part, and I don’t see any way it could be argued otherwise.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:40 am to bluestem75
quote:
A major reason gay people pushed for marriage came down to laws regarding the passage of property and wealth.
I really wish the LGBT movement could have been happy and satisfied with this once gay marriage passed. I think we'd be fine. This whole trans thing, with children, with women's locker rooms and sports, etc... has really given a black eye to the "regular gay people" and set relations back.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:40 am to BigPerm30
quote:
You don’t think the environment has changed in the last twenty years where there are less closeted people?
Upwards of 30% of gen Z is identifying as one of the letters. You honestly thing 30% is a normal number that would always be present if there is no stigma?
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:42 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
You understand that they are the exception, not the rule, yeah?
Not at all.
quote:
Scientists have found that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners largely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:44 am to burger bearcat
This whole argument could be ended if we got the government out of the marriage business.
Government should only have a purpose of recognizing civil unions for the purpose of joining two parties as it relates to government or business relations (taxes, insurances death beneficiaries etc.) Yea I know i'm not explaining that very well but.
Marriages (as it is defined in God's word) should the the soly responsibility of the Church (I guess whatever church you trust is the true church of God.)
Marriage certificates issued by the church should require that you adhere to the churches teachings. If you don't like a Church's teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman then you can gop find a religions organizations that allows whatever it is you're looking for.
If you have a Marriage certificate( i.e. from a church) you would still need a government union certificate to obtain all the things that government afford.
I know there is a much better way of explaining it but in essence You should not need a Marriage certificate to have someone of you insurance etc. and the Church should not be forced to accept that two women are wife and wife in marriage. An organization can call itself a church and accept gay unions but it would be up to the members of that organization to allow it or find an organization that consider a true Church.
But I suspect we all know the answer is not about marriage, it's about corrupting and eroding the faith of the people of God and ultimately corrupting the minds of people to keep them from the glory of Gods grace.
Government should only have a purpose of recognizing civil unions for the purpose of joining two parties as it relates to government or business relations (taxes, insurances death beneficiaries etc.) Yea I know i'm not explaining that very well but.
Marriages (as it is defined in God's word) should the the soly responsibility of the Church (I guess whatever church you trust is the true church of God.)
Marriage certificates issued by the church should require that you adhere to the churches teachings. If you don't like a Church's teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman then you can gop find a religions organizations that allows whatever it is you're looking for.
If you have a Marriage certificate( i.e. from a church) you would still need a government union certificate to obtain all the things that government afford.
I know there is a much better way of explaining it but in essence You should not need a Marriage certificate to have someone of you insurance etc. and the Church should not be forced to accept that two women are wife and wife in marriage. An organization can call itself a church and accept gay unions but it would be up to the members of that organization to allow it or find an organization that consider a true Church.
But I suspect we all know the answer is not about marriage, it's about corrupting and eroding the faith of the people of God and ultimately corrupting the minds of people to keep them from the glory of Gods grace.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:45 am to RogerTheShrubber
Scientists also told you to get vaccinated after you already had and survived Covid with minor symptoms, and they told you the virus mutated from a bat that shite in someone’s soup, and they told you cigarettes are good for you.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:48 am to OBReb6
quote:
Scientists also told you to get vaccinated
Not all. Just the govt approved ones. Thank God for Operation Warp Speed.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:50 am to Azkiger
quote:
I tried to make it as simple as I could.
Attacking a straw man is simple.
Again, I'm not talking about changing anything regarding gay marriage. I'm talking about how and why it was forced upon the country and whether or not that's healthy.
Yes, 70%, now you don't have to respond.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:50 am to BigPerm30
quote:
Just like I’m not attracted to men, some dudes don’t like women.
And some dudes are only attracted to little kids.
Others are only attracted to themselves (auto-sexual; not the same as masturbating to porn or as a substitute for sex with someone else).
And some are zoophiles, who are sexually attracted to animals.
Just because someone has a feeling, it doesn't mean that feeling represents a normal or mentally healthy impulse.
Psychology claims homosexuality is normal and healthy (since the early 70s), but after all of this trans nonsense I trust we can all see that that field is politically rather than scientifically motivated.
Half the population of the entire world walks around with an innie and the other half walks around with an outie.
You don't need IKEA directions to figure out how the parts were designed to fit together.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News