RNC Votes Unanimously Backing Traditional Marriage


#21

So I notice you skipped the whole initial point of your post…churches being FORCED to accept gay marriages. Thanks for the tacit admission that the whole claim was bogus.
Second…I was using the impersonal YOU as in YOU SOCIAL CONS. I apologize if that came off as a personal “you”.

To take a few point out of your quote:

Why? The same rights would apply to all.
And I’ve never said anything about “State sponsored marriages.” I even went to so far as to say that, as difficult as it would be for me to accept my union with my husband as a “Civil Union”, (as we were married by a JP, although by the Bible MARRIAGE verse), I would, if it would end the argument.
Why? Because the “rite of marriage” belongs to the church. And the question of marriage ought to be if one is considered “married” under the auspices of the particular different religious doctrines; not by the government.
It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with whether or not they are considered married under the law.

That’s fine…unfortunately socons weren’t saying this a decade ago…nor are very many of them saying it now. What most of THEM want is a two tier civil system consisting of unions for gays and marriages for straights. Separate but equal. Where have I heard that before? Your solution would be fine with me. Ain’t gonna happen because of both the history and the continuing intransigence of the Socons. Gays are going for marriage and WINNING…why should they stop to please those who despise them?

As are the individual states’ rights, as marriage has ALWAYS been a states’ rights issue, and should remain so. Why you want the federal government sticking it’s nose into it more than it has, I don’t know. The ‘marriage penalty when I file my taxes would be one of them.
No, it doesn’t.
**There is no Constitutional right to marry. ** Ergo, via the 10th Amendment, it is a states’ rights issue.

Unfortunately for your argument…you are wrong. There IS a constitutional right to marry. The Court has said so as part of the un-enumerated rights as specified in the 9th by the founders. The open LEGAL question is does that right extend to gays? Of course states may REGULATE marriage within their domains. But that does not extend to trampling on individual rights. (Do you argue that states may say that blacks and whites cannot marry?) The question for the court is NOT a trampling of states rights…but a question on IF an individual right to marry someone of the same gender exists in the same way that an individual right to marry the opposite sex exists under SECULAR LAW. The FEDS are WAY more involved in marriage than you seem to wish. May I have your SS check when your hubby passes away since the FEDS should not be involved in that? Are you ready to pay full tax on his estate as if you were just living together and had no right to marital joint property to be un-taxed? Here’s the 75 page GAO office report prepared for the DOMA act on the over 1000 laws affected by the act. Try to untangle that by having 50 states decide what the feds should do. http://www.gao.gov/assets/230/223674.pdf

Or do you want the federal government to keep proclamating that Catholic schools must house gay couples in their dorms for married couples?
I will always be in favor of equal protection under the law. What I will never abide is special protection under the law.

By Catholic schools, I take it you mean COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES which are affilliated with the Catholic church but accept federal funding…i.e. MY TAX dollars? Do they accept people of all colors? Do they accept people of other religions? Must one profess Catholic beliefs to attend? Do they have to attend religious classes?
Frankly…I think this particular question is debateable and probably turns on HOW SECTARIAN beliefs play into the running of the college on a day to day basis. The school might be better off NOT providing housing for ANY married couples…and selling off their married housing dorms to a private concern which would then follow the law. Alternatively…married couples of every gender and orientation could do what those at my school did. Find somewhere to live. Oh…the horror!!
LOL…in my school we had to fight for the RIGHT to live off campus!
Requiring Catholic schools to provide birth control in their health plans is a much easier call IMHO…and is a definite no-no and intrudes on religious beliefs that are protected by the 1st.

As to your last comment…the only ones getting special protection under the law are those in traditional marriage. I won’t stand for that either.


#22

That’s alright. I still like you.


#23

"It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”
― Joseph Goebbels (Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Party)

“If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. ” ― Joseph Goebbels

“The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” ― Joseph Goebbels, Die Tagebücher. Geschichte & Vermarktung

Our politicians learned from the best it seems…


#24

Truth never changes. If it does, it is not truth.


#25

Let’s not resort to Godwin’s Law, please. Social issues like gay marriage usually don’t have “truth” or “lie” positions. Both sides have some truth, both sides have some lies. Let’s not compare people to Nazis. It’s an overused trope.


#26

But comparing people to racists is fine?

although it is interesting that Goebbels didnt say either of the bottom 2 quotes, cant find a reliable source either way on the 1st


#27

Truth never changes. If it does, you were wrong before! :beerchug:


#28

I don’t know. I didn’t compare people to racists. Maybe that’s the new Nazis of Internet debate.


#29

I never said you did, but many of the pro-gay marriage people have and you didnt scold them. Heck STD did it in post #7 of this thread and you didnt say anything about it.


#30

Trekky: Why don’t YOU stop making assumptions, huh??? I was providing the actual PERSON who made the comment that Lord Brennus referred to, ok??? It’s no wonder why people here attack you and your statements! :banghead:


#31

I don’t think that’s all you were doing…

Our politicians learned from the best it seems…

I’m just saying let’s not use Nazi comparisons.


#32

How about Generalissimo Franco as a compromise! :smiley:


#33

I prefer Augusto Pinochet myself I mean come on, just look at that image:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1840[/ATTACH]
He’s got the sunglasses and everything!


#34

My guy has more friends on facebook!


#35

I was doing some research on those quotes and Goebbels didnt actually say them.

The original quote was “There’s nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it” by William James the father of modern psychology.

The more common “If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth” while misattributed to Goebbels does not have a reliable author

I guess the irony is the misattribution about a lie becoming the truth has proven itself correct

The Goebbels quote “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” is actually a summation of this quote by Goebbels

“The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”

The implication being that the German propaganda was the truth


#36

Yeah but those friends didn’t last.


#37

Bingo!

If every “Man” and every “Woman” is under the exact same parameters then there is no “unequal” application of Law.

Choosing NOT to marry under these parameters for ANY reason does not constitute being “treated unequal”.

If I choose NOT to buy a gun I cannot claim unequal treatment than those who chose to buy a gun received
If I choose NOT to speak I cannot claim unequal treatment under the 1st Amendment than those who chose to speak
If I choose NOT to vote I cannot claim I was disenfranchised while others who chose to vote were not.

Deciding NOT to marry whether it is because you don’t believe in marriage, don’t want the responsibilities, don’t want to endure compromises, don’t want to be monogamous or don’t want to partner with someone of the opposite sex is all the same, YOUR CHOICE.

No Law demands anyone get married and no law applies differently to any Man or any Woman who decides to marry, this is just the queers trying to spit in the face of religion using a government gun to force acceptance.


#38

That language is inappropriate and uncalled for.


#39

The day I take linguistic advice from someone who clearly does not own a dictionary is…well, I guess the day I become a Liberal.

Or never in other words.


#40

Well, you can argue with this website: Joseph Goebbels Quotes (Author of Final Entries 1945)