Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems there is a fair number of Americans out there that profess a desire for "freedom" and "limited government," yet also wholly support government bans on gay marriage.
This has seemed to me to be a contradictory position, at least on the surface.
I am curious to hear how people can justify taking both positions. I'm assuming there are legitimate points to be made, but that I just haven't thought of them yet.
But, on the surface is seems that if someone generally supports the right of citizens to be free from uneeded government intrusion into their lives, the decision about who to marry would be left up to an individual to make, not the government. But, apparantly that is not the case for many people. They fervently support a limited government that respects the rights of people to be free, but they also support the government controlling who can, or cannot marry who.
It comes down to a battle over the redefintion of a word. Few are opposed to the idea of civil unions to grant rights to hospital visitations, inheritance, etc. I would absolutely support that, as would most conservatives. Practically speaking it would solve the problem and put an end to the bias against gays in the law.
But that's not good enough for the left. They insist on redefining a word that for a few thousand years has had a particular meaning. Why is that? Enlighten me....
It comes down to a battle over the redefintion of a word. Few are opposed to the idea of civil unions to grant rights to hospital visitations, inheritance, etc. I would absolutely support that, as would most conservatives. Practically speaking it would solve the problem and put an end to the bias against gays in the law.
But that's not good enough for the left. They insist on redefining a word that for a few thousand years has had a particular meaning. Why is that? Enlighten me....
Bah..nonsense.
That word hadn't had any real meaning in decades. It's straight people that have redefined marriage, not gay people.
Marriage has always been between a man and woman, even a 2 year old child can understand that concept.
I know many Liberals have hard times dealing with reality and wish the world was this BS lala land where unicorns fly, puppies **** Skittles, a world where everybody is "equal", all races get along and altogether hold hands and sing Kumbaya my Lord- Now back to reality!
Marriage has always been between a man and woman, even a 2 year old child can understand that concept.
No. It hasn't. Polygamy and concubinage have a long tradition in the western and non-western world alike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Repubocrat
I know many Liberals have hard times dealing with reality and wish the world was this BS lala land where unicorns fly, puppies **** Skittles, a world where everybody is "equal", all races get along and altogether hold hands and sing Kumbaya my Lord- Now back to reality!
It is clearly you who have the problem with reality. What precisely makes you unable to accept the fact that homosexuality exists and that there are many loving homosexual couples who would like to marry? Why do you feel the need to rail against it? It does not affect you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
