Texas Religious Liberty Law Signed

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

gerhard1

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
4,549
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Enid, OK
Why is it considered 'hate' to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? Personally, I have supported the idea of civil unions for a long time, but because I believe in traditional marriage, I am considered by some to be a 'hater'.

https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/texas-governor-save-chick-fil-a-bill-law

I believe that the real hatred is coming from the political Left.
 

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
2,061
Location
Oxford, MS
Why is it considered 'hate' to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? Personally, I have supported the idea of civil unions for a long time, but because I believe in traditional marriage, I am considered by some to be a 'hater'.

https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/texas-governor-save-chick-fil-a-bill-law

I believe that the real hatred is coming from the political Left.

i don't know why it's considered fine for the government to determine that two men can't be married or that two women can't be married, but hey, i'm for less government, not more, so what do i know.

But hey, the gays really should have just been glad they've stopped being legally penalized (as previously happened) or executed (as has been suggested by some as recent as a few weeks ago), am i right? Yeah, seems like enough hatred to go around.

if people really wanted to protect 'traditional marriage' then they should have worked to stop it from creeping into our laws and left it in the realm of religion. But as it stood, we had a lot of laws that affected 'married' people differently than singles and those with civil unions. IIRC, civil unions worked at the state level, but did not extend to the federal level for such things as tax breaks and social security benefits, etc.
 
Last edited:

snafu21

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2018
Messages
251
Reaction score
257
Location
Stroud
I don't care who marries who as long as they are of age and are consenting. I feel gays (or whatever alphabet they choose to go by) should be able to marry. As much as I don't want the government regulating us, marriage has some lots of benefits. A married couple can get insurance, can be major leverage in cases of death and property, can help in custody again in death and adoption situation, taxes as mentioned above, and many other things.

Just having a "partner" affords the partner little protection/rights to deal with unfortunate situations and after death they have little to no say. Some hospitals will even turn a partner away since they are not actually related.

That being said, two dudes is gross. Well, two ugly women is gross too but two good looking women is video worthy.
 

gerhard1

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
4,549
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Enid, OK
I stand by what I said and will not intimidated into silence. Just because I support traditional marriage does not mean that I 'hate' gays. I said in the OP that I support civil unions and that means all of the legal rights of marriage.

Perhaps, as alluded to above, one solution would be for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether with civil unions being what the government does and leave marriage to the churches, synagogues and mosques. But please, can we at least agree that a sincere difference of opinion doesn't automatically mean 'hate'?

I hate no one and I am tired of being called a hater. No one here has called me that, but some of the people in the linked article certainly have.
 

John6185

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
9,310
Reaction score
9,613
Location
OKC
Give a little, lose a lot over the long haul. Yield to liberalism because they want an inch and they'll take a yard. Sometimes conservatives have to take a stand for what they believe in, the liberals take a stand on a near daily basis for their beliefs. I know we cannot roll back the clock to the 1950's when all was patriotism and heady because WWII was won and moms stayed at home and nurtured the children but give me a break, sometimes the left pushes their agenda a little too much as in our schools, universities, military etc and sometimes a line has to be drawn.
 

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
2,061
Location
Oxford, MS
I stand by what I said and will not intimidated into silence. Just because I support traditional marriage does not mean that I 'hate' gays. I said in the OP that I support civil unions and that means all of the legal rights of marriage.

Perhaps, as alluded to above, one solution would be for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether with civil unions being what the government does and leave marriage to the churches, synagogues and mosques. But please, can we at least agree that a sincere difference of opinion doesn't automatically mean 'hate'?

I hate no one and I am tired of being called a hater. No one here has called me that, but some of the people in the linked article certainly have.

i don't think you hate anyone, but i also don't think your argument works out in the way you think it does. As was noted, civil unions didn't do the same thing as 'marriage' and the 'hate' you discuss goes both ways.

The fight over defining marriage is, frankly, stupid and one of our own making. Had people just kept the government out of it and not tried to use the .gov to enforce their moral values, i don't think we'd be having these fights. But instead one group was denied equal protection under the law and now we are dealing with the issues that come from the pendulum swinging back to the other side. Swerve and overcorrect.

both sides use broad brushes. Both sides know hate and love. Too bad the hate always seem to be focused on above the love.
 

gerhard1

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
4,549
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Enid, OK
i don't think you hate anyone, but i also don't think your argument works out in the way you think it does. As was noted, civil unions didn't do the same thing as 'marriage' and the 'hate' you discuss goes both ways.

The fight over defining marriage is, frankly, stupid and one of our own making. Had people just kept the government out of it and not tried to use the .gov to enforce their moral values, i don't think we'd be having these fights. But instead one group was denied equal protection under the law and now we are dealing with the issues that come from the pendulum swinging back to the other side. Swerve and overcorrect.

both sides use broad brushes. Both sides know hate and love. Too bad the hate always seem to be focused on above the love.
Perhaps in some cases, civil union law did not give all of th rights of marriage, but that is remedied by appropriate legislation. It amazes me that gay marriage has not been an issue except for the last few years.

Liberal Supreme Courts have created rights out of while cloth including the 'right' to abortion. To paraphrase Chief Justice Roberts,'who do they think they are?'
 

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
2,061
Location
Oxford, MS
Perhaps in some cases, civil union law did not give all of th rights of marriage, but that is remedied by appropriate legislation. It amazes me that gay marriage has not been an issue except for the last few years.

Liberal Supreme Courts have created rights out of while cloth including the 'right' to abortion. To paraphrase Chief Justice Roberts,'who do they think they are?'

actually, i think it was an issue before (hence all the states passing state constitutional amendments against it and the federal DOMA law). It just wasn't an issue to most because they were on the side that wasn't being restricted so they didn't notice.

And why does it seem easier to 'remedy' things by passing state by state laws and a federal law vs what happened. Of course, that sets aside the unconstitutionality of DOMA. And even if you view that decision as wrong, i don't get why simply repealing it would be more burdensome than your proposal of passing 'appropriate' legislation.

But as i said, a problem of our own making.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom