Posted on 09/08/2012 9:03:55 AM PDT by Why So Serious
Here is a better way to look at this ... the government should not be in the marriage business, and marriage is not a political issue. Gay people, for the most part, express a desire to get married for the benefits that are extended to married couple [rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children]. Government should allow people to engage in civil unions [this includes men and women], only. Marriage should be left to the churches. Then, any one can have a civil union [man/lady, lady/lady, man/man, mom/son, dad/daughter, brother/sister, person/multiple people] which extends to that civil union the governmental rights that married couple now enjoy which include the marriage tax credit, right to pass assets without taxation upon death, the right to make life ending decisions [pulling the plug]. The whole issue dies in a blink. This should not have to be a political thing. Moving the line in the sand never works ... better just to erase it. I believe that my wife and I are married in GOD's eyes and believe that we have a civil union in the eyes of government. It should not be anything different then a partnership, LLC, or LP.
Ansel sounds like a student of history. Do you want take a guess where he studied?
Ansel sounds like a student of history. Do you want take a guess where he studied and what his grade was?
Hey dude, don’t post behind someone’s back, ping me to your attacks on me.
Marriage is already defined in Western civilization, and in America, it is you lefty types that want to end that.
You are lying all over the place, you post a vanity promoting the homosexual/Islamic agendas, and then fight tooth and nail for that position in post after post, and pretend that you aren’t.
What about your lie that you were calling to raise taxes for people who are homosexual, and lower them for normal people?
ansel, I know you have already explained that you are this big history buff and will not be interested in research some one else's nonsense, but could you please tell me who and when defined marriage as between a man and a woman?
If we want to be a free country, I’m not certain that we can define marriage outside our various religious institutions. People came to America for freedom of religion, and they should have it, but not impose it on others.
I don’t think that any federal government should define marriage-leave it to the states, if they want to try to go there. I may not agree with everyone, but I will defend their right to disagree. Without that, we are no better than the old USSR.
The only thing close to a “mainstream” church that recognizes polygamy is the Muslim faith-the rest of the religions that do are pretty much cults and outliers that are not paid attention to unless they break some law common to all of us-like Warren Jeffs with the bigamy, rape and child abuse. And even then, those stepford wives of his stood up for him.
ansel, my politics is to the right of Genghis Khan. I did not post anything behind your back. I included you in the post. I did not lie about anything. In my post I said we should make homos pay higher taxes and heteros should get tax breaks. You turned that around to say that I said that they currently pay different taxes. Inasmuch as you have informed us that you are very astute in history you have shown that you lack understanding of basic English. I have not lied any where in this post. I can assure you that Islam does not support homosexual marriage but you some how feel that there is a homosexual/Islamic agenda. Your understanding of Islam is closer to your understanding of basic English than it is to history, I guess. I have been trying to figure out what the “12” in “ansel12” is. I think I have a good guess. I typed this post a little slower than the others so that you can read it a little slower and understand it. This is supposed to be a simple discussion and you started responding like a democrat does when they cannot discuss with logic. You start making up stuff that people did not say and then you call them a liar when they tell you that they did not say it.
It isn’t really any of my business.
You think that there was a time in America when marriage was not defined as a man and a woman, until you and your ilk came along?
Gibberish.
So America has been wrong and oppressive all this time that we only allowed normal marriage, and you now want to allow any cult to write their own definitions of marriage, and that will improve America and make us less like the USSR?
I bet you did show up here to debate, since freerepublic is a conservative site, and you are a full blown lefty whack case.
There was a time in America that blacks were "defined" as 2/3rds of a person and they could not be free. I wonder what your post would have looked like when they changed that.
There was a time in America that blacks could not go to school, sit in the front of the bus, eat in a diner, drink out of a public water fountain ... all because they were "defined" as 2/3rds of a person. I guess your recollection or history studies have taught you that the homosexual/Islamic agenda came to the rescue. And now all people are a whole people.
Women were not allowed to vote, and then the homosexual/Islamic agenda changed that.
In the early 1900s when my family came here from Ireland signs were posted "No Irish Need Apply" because they were "defined" as dirty.
What history have you studied. Our founding fathers [really Thomas Jefferson] had great vision. He was not perfect. He was one of the men that "defined" blacks as 2/3rds of a person, and he owned slaves. Tell me, was his definition correct? You would be well served to actually study some history. It would make for a better conversation.
Give me a quick snapshot of what your post would have looked like when they "re-defined" blacks to be a whole person from 2/3rds. Just for the entertainment!
You are much farther left, and more anti-American than I realized.
Which country’s marriage laws is it that you wanted America to adopt at it’s beginnings, that did not define marriage as one man, one woman?
Please read below and understand that you're left with two choices: get a clue or take a hike.
Thank you.
Hope you don’t have a problem that this site is 100% opposed to godless abortionism, homosexualism, RINOism, liberalism, statism, Marxism, fascism, anarchism, globull warming balonyism, etc.!! And FYI, the “sycophants” you speak of are all like-minded grassroost life & liberty conservatives that I’m trying to attract to this website. If you’re not one, why are you here?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2921332/posts?page=79#79
zot
There you go again-
Where was marriage defined by the federal government? The state laws defining marriage are just that-state laws, and I’ve got no problem with that at all, if they want to do that-Texas defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Don’t look now, but your hard line is a bit squishy. If you’re going to push the homosexual agenda, do it elsewhere. That crap’s not for FR and will definitely earn you a zot.
Thank you, mod-to be fair, the thread started as what appeared to be a discussion/friendly debate on whether states selling marriage licenses encourages homosexual “marriage” or not-shouldn’t have been radioactive.
I’ve been here since Oct 2000, and have a pretty thick skin, and I do try to be civil and respectful-but ansel12 had my mouse pointer hovering over the abuse button for the first time in many months over his insults.
Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
Your tagline is wrong. You just got cured!
Arguing about who gets to define marriage (you’re saying the government doesn’t get to define it), or what it used to be defined as, and so on; is like arguing who gets to define what “day” and “night” mean.
Natural law defines marriage.
Congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act and President Lincoln signed it into law in 1862. You know, that Republican President who fought against the twin barbarisms of polygamy & slavery? Funny how polygamy is a barbaric institution, yet homosexual unions are “enlightened.”
Reynolds v. US upheld The Anti-Bigamy Act in 1879. To achieve statehood, Utah was forced to denounce polygamy. So, it’s safe to say that both Congress and the US Supreme Court have a history of supporting one-man/one woman marriage.
Of course the people of the states have the right to regulate marriage, so long as they exist within this parameter (eg. common-law marriages, age restrictions, consanguinous marriage between cousins). But to declare that there should be no federal, state or any governmental promotion of one-man/one-woman marriage is ahistorical and not part of American legal tradition.
Laws don’t usually show up until a problem arises.
In 1854 the Republican party was founded, partly to deal with the brand new problem of polygamy(”the Republican party termed polygamy and slavery the “twin relics of barbarism.”), by 1862 the United States Congress passed the Morrill Act, “which prohibited plural marriage in the territories, disincorporated the Mormon Church, and restricted the church’s ownership of property”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.