TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote: Trust me. I am tolerant. I am not judgemental. I work with flaming gays.

One of these sentences is different than the others...

donkey wrote: The point I've been trying to make is that supporting gay marriage is supporting more government involvement not less. If people truly wanted the government out of the bedroom, then they would advocate that the government not deal with marriage at all, not for straight couples and not for gay couples. I'm not arguing for or against gay marriage. I'm saying that it's disingenous to suggest that legalizing gay marriage equal less government in the bedroom.

Right, but the point you are missing is that marriage equality has nothing to do with the bedroom. In fact, repealing DOMA would result in less laws. A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is more law. DOMA is more law. Individual states having to deal with the legalities that arise from contracts in their state not being recognized in other states or by the federal government is more law.

Nobody is arguing that the government should get out of marriage entirely because it doesn't make any sense. It is impossible to enforce contracts, even private contracts, without the courts, which are part of the government. It is impossible to file a joint tax return without the IRS, also the government. It is impossible to obtain social security benefits without the government.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with electoral votes and we seem to be at a standstill, so I'll bow out.

donkey wrote: This isn't about a slippery slope, this is about the government being involved in marriage at all. If we really wanted the government out of our bedrooms then we wouldn't have the government issue marriage licenses. We've already repealed laws against sodomy and there's no law preventing two people of the same sex from living together. Yet those who advocate gay marriage invite the government into their bedrooms and demand approval.

If the marriage contract had anything to do with "you can now have sex with this person" you may have a point, but that has very little to do with it.

As I said in my last post, marriage is a contract. It confers certain rights to the parties involved, and requires the government to enforce. Inheritance, benefits, hospital visits, parental rights, and all manner of other things are involved. Trying to distill that to "welp, we don't throw gays in jail for having consensual sex any more, so they should be happy!" is missing the point.

donkey wrote: If we were really talking about the government staying out of the bedroom then there would be zero government involvement in marriage. No more government marriage licenses preventing you from marrying someone of the same gender, underage, or related to you. Two consenting people could do whatever they want in their own home and could be married by whatever church would allow it. But that's not what is being advocated. Gay marriages supporters are actively inviting the government into their bedrooms and demanding approval of their beliefs. This isn't an argument over whether gay marriage is right or wrong; just that any government involvement in marriage is still government involvement. Gay marriage advocates don't want the government out of the bedroom, they want to invite it into more rooms.

In the most basic terms, marriage is a contract that confers certain financial and legal rights.

It requires the backing of the government to be enforced.

Also, the conflation of underage marriage with "two consenting people" is disingenuous. Minors cannot legally consent or enter into contracts, which is is why statuatory rape is a crime. It is also why the child marriage and "people marrying dogs!!" arguments are ridiculous. There is no consent in those cases, which is the crucial difference. There is no slippery slope to slide down.

Kythas wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote: Let their union take care of them, or their "Glorious Leader", they obviously don't need me.

Oh, but they do need you, my friend. Your taxes are what allows them to be taken care of.

The problem with this line of thought is that almost without exception (Texas being the current exception) red states take in more federal money than they pay in federal taxes.