Conservatives: Do you support gay marriage?

Cool! Should gay people be allowed to marry people of the same sex, yes or no?

 

Why do you call an incentive that comes from the state a free market incentive?

Using taxes/subsidies/price floors/price ceilings to manipulate the supply/demand curve results in inefficiencies and misallocation of resources.

We don't need the state using carrots and sticks to encourage a particular private social behavior (like marriage). It's social engineering and it's insidious, the state pushing us to behave a certain way.

 

You couldn't wait 3.5 hours before you threw the above out there. Like, dude, give us some time. Sheeesh. Don't play your game your way you get testy...hmmmm, where have I heard THAT before.

For the record, I'm all for gay marriages. Have been for as long as I can remember. What I'm not for is this whole "throw it in my face" attitude they have. FORCING an issue....oh, where have I heard THAT before.

 

I don't support it as much as I just don't give a flip. If it isn't going to harm me, why would I care if they get married?

 

Liberals sooo desire the social engineering. This is just a culture war they want to win, dominate and use the power of the state to control the people THEIR WAY. That's all this is about to them. It is definitely not about freedom.

 

No, marriage have been state-free private contracts the far majority of human history. Nobody thought about bring the state INTO marriage until a need arose to regulate interracial marriages etc. It is liberals who are clinging on to the means of oppression (I wonder why...)

I btw, think about separating as many things from the state as possible.

 

Actually to mandate pairings is more social engineering than to not mandate them... and that has been done for a long time... unsuccessfully.

Stable families is what the government really desires. Giving any couple the same financial and legal advantages to marry is only fair.

Heteros have trampled over the religious sanctity of marriage to the tune of 50% or more. Biblical talk of marriage is not about the state's participation, it is about the church's and more importantly about the couple's understanding of the union.

Legalizing marriage from the governmental POV will not change that.... and if done... we can stop talking about it! Agreed?

 

If it's unsuccessful why perpetuate the incentive?

 

Because it is still beneficial.... for those of us married anyway! Your point is inarguable though and that standpoint alone.

 

You tried to point it out to bats, but were entirely unsuccessful.

 

I'm not sure what Batman Jones got so worked up about. It's not even just conservatives who hold the view that the government should have no part of marriage.

State recognized marriage, in the form of benefits sharing or whatever, is not only discrimination for gays, it is discrimination for single people. The role of the government is not to force people to love certain groups, it is to protect those groups' rights. We can't stop citizens from hating blacks, gays, little people, disabled people, muslims or whomever. We can only protect them.

 

That is weird. Pretty sure the State has been involved int the Western world since Martin Luther and the Reformation.

Of course the State was involved a lot longer for royalty because marriages had very large consequences on the ruling of nations, succession, etc. It was because of marriage that "foreign" bloodlines could rule a country like Spain for hundreds of years.

Of course for the majority of human existence, the church (or organized religion in general) was not involved in marriage, either. It was a much more local, personalized thing. Two people said they wanted to marry, parents agreed, they all say it in public - done deal. Now give me some cattle and gold coins.

 

This is a bad use of the text. Scripture discourages marrying outside of your faith. The people this text refers to worshipped other gods. The order to avoid marrying these people was because they would turn the Jewish hearts away from God.

 

I am a conservative and I fully support gay marriage. As long as no attempt is made to force churches to honor or perform the ceremonies, I see no rationale for forbidding them that doesn't involve scriptural beliefs and interpretations, which I don't feel are good reasons to form a law that doesn't impact anyone but the people getting married.

 

A valid point that is always overlooked! Of course, nobody cares, just as nobody cared about gay marriage 20 years ago.

50 years ago, a straight couple living together was seriously frowned upon. Nobody cares now.

30 years ago, a person being gay was frowned upon.
Nobody cares now. Quit beating the gay drum. Go away with your constant annoying parades. Go away with your inequality arguments. If they REALLY care about inequality, go fight for a real cause. Only the extreme far right really care if you're gay.

 

First, to the OP, very poor job of trolling (making the poll open).

The only valid argument gay marriage provides is the reminder of how badly the government recognition of couples needs to be redone.

A government recognized marriage is basically a civil union. For decades, its been synonymous. You can just as easily replace "marriage" with "civil union".

Though the centuries, marriage has usually been done through religion. You can't exactly get a civil union through a church.

If gays really cared about the rights married people get, then they would be perfectly happy with a term "civil union" to get the same rights. The truth is, its usually over the term "marriage" and not the rights.


My person belief has always been that legal recognition of a couple should be much more stringent.
There should be absolutely NO tax benefits. Child care credit on taxes should be left to the parents or courts.
Everyone should be able to define visiting rights in a hospital, whether your gay, straight or single.
Inheritance (all forms;SS, retirement/pension) - Make a friggen will. If you don't make a will, too bad. Nobody is too young to die.
Any type of employment arguments should be left to the employer.

People should not get state sponsored recognition unions so easily. Personally, I think they should be required to apply 5 years in advance and be required to live with each other for 5 years.

If youre the religious type, get "married" with the church, apply and move in together. If you choose to raise a family, then the same rules apply as if you were single.

If either person should die with in the 5 year period, then the civil union would go in effect, allowing the other person to take the benefits.

If the couple would split, then it would be the same as two single people currently.

 

What's your justification of this? It's not party affiliation that chooses somebody's view on gay marriage, it's religion. Yes religious groups play a bigger part in the Republican party, but their are still many liberals that don't support gay marriage.

Anyways I'm a conservative and of course I support gay marriage. You do anything you can to let more children get adopted and grow up in a loving home.

 

^says this about the current religious-ordained set-up that rewards heterosexual marriages, and punishes homosexual ones.

internal contradiction between being a religious libertarian showing up once again.