Chic-Fil-A

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Yes, it was you who sidetracked it.

So what was post #5 and post #7? They sure were not discussing the issue brought up in the original post were they? But its "all my fault".... Yeah right.

It was you pointed out that you wish for government to withhold the right of gays to marry

I have never known you to make stuff up, so WHERE did I do that???? Show me where I derailed this thread with such a statement, as I don't appreciate accusations that are untrue. I even went and reread every post I have made here and I do no such thing!

and you've been dancing around that accusation but never quite answering it. So now it's time for you to answer a direct question: Do you or do you not wish for government to deny gays the right to marry? Simple question, but one you keep avoiding.

Steve - I don't know what your reading - but you haven't been paying attention when reading my posts. Read the first line of my post #64 - how much clearer of an answer do you want?

To quote what I said:

Funny - we agree that government should not be involved in marriage

If government is not involved in marriage - it couldn't keep people from getting married, now could it? I don't with government to be involved. I wish government was OUT of the equation.

But you know - we don't live in the world of WISHES. We live in reality - and reality is that government is involved. Until it is out of the equation, then we need to maintain the status quo. My reasoning is explained below for why that is.

Where did you ask me that.

Post 73 - regarding restricting politicians. You said it should be done - so you agreed with me.

And just to be clear, no, I don't believe the government should be interfering in anything.

So your agreeing with me again.

The accusation against you has been that you claim you don't want any government interference, yet that is the only way to prevent gay marriage, and you support that prevention. Thus the "hypocrite" claim.

And what I have stated is that I don't want government involved at all. While my training is Baptist - I was ordained through a different faith - one that does sanction homosexual marriage. I don't have to agree with it - I don't have to perform any ceremony that violates my own, personal views.

I will say it again - if government is not involved in marriage - it couldn't keep people from getting married, now could it? If government was not involved in marriage - and a gay couple (consenting adults) wanted to get married and went to a minister who was willing to perform the ceremony - then they would get married, wouldn't they? I would support that - because at that point - it affects no one but themselves. Unfortunately - it currently involves government, and thus the rest of society. There is a rule I follow when looking at government - the more it gets involved in something - the more screwed up that something gets.

Governmental sanction of a divisive social issue makes it more divisive and more screwed up. If you need an example - just look at the issue of abortion. Society not only fights over it - we now also fight over whether or not tax money is used for it, whether or not those who don't believe in it have to pay for it through increased insurance premiums, etc etc..... See -the more they get involved - the more screwed up the issue becomes.

So the more government tries to "fix" or change things - the worse they get. Government needs to leave well enough alone. Leave things be or create a civil union recognition to stop the whining - until we can get it further OUT of the issue. Once that is done - its a moot point, now isn't it?

The federal government needs to have no input on marriage other than requiring participants to be mentally competent consenting adults. Such a requirement should simply mirror State law that should also exist. Otherwise - neither the State nor the feds should have a blasted thing to say about it. That is the ideal. Until the ideal happens - then I support keeping government from tinkering with the issue even further and causing even more problems. Currently, that means DoMA - though I have issues with it.

I also take issue with the "one man/one woman" definition (though for a different reason that homosexuality). Yet I support DoMA - because it is what it is right now - and I feel we are better off not screwing with it any more except to get government out of the equation.

Which - btw - is another great reason I support the flat tax. It would again help get the government out of the business of marriage - because it wouldn't be making money on it anymore!

As to your claims about redefining "marriage", words are redifined every day, and I'm willing to bet that you accept terms that have been redifined and don't even know it.

Oh there may be a few - I suspect there are some we all think have one meaning but that has changed frome something else. However - there is a difference between meanings changing over time naturally and a small group tryng to use the force of government to ramrod a change in the definition to accomplish their agenda.