Thread: Gay Republicans Explain Why They Are Proudly Supporting Donald Trump

Originally Posted by Judy

You are elevating "marriage" to something far beyond why we issue government marriage licenses.

Again, if the government itself did not elevate marriage to something other than a simple contract, then homosexual marriages would already be legitimate. You are arguing with yourself.

I would support getting rid of the "marriage" license altogether, and just having a License to Wed or Form a Union for everybody, because that's all it is. ...

Again, this is what I brought up.

Originally Posted by pkskyali;

Some other kind of contractual arrangement between individuals of the same sex should be possible that does not infringe on marriage as a heterosexual institution. It might even offer something for individuals of the opposite sex who are not interested in marriage, but want some other kind of contract between them.

But this should exist independently of marriage licenses for heterosexuals who wish to bear children.

The Sexual Revolution has bore a lot of happy results. Nobody wants to go back to the days when the government policed sexual behavior. That has changed forever, especially regarding birth control. Notice also that birth control is not a political issue for homosexuals, it is strictly a heterosexual concern. So also is the right to abortion a heterosexual concern.

Rejection and disgust at some sexual behaviors is completely natural and acceptable for anyone. Nobody expects homosexuals to view heterosexual behavior or the opposite sex as acceptable. If homosexuals find the opposite sex or heterosexuality disgusting, this is acceptable. Everyone has something in the world of sex that turns them on and turns them off and we should all respect this. If you find somebody disgusting because of some evidence of their sexual behavior, you have every right to avoid them and reject them socially. But that should also mean you leave them alone and not interfere with their lives.

On the other hand, sex is a private issue and if you are constantly seeking attention regarding your own sexuality, this is bound to be a source of irritation and nobody should pose this irritation as a threat to anyone's civil liberties or social standing.

No, you are arguing for something that doesn't exist. You are arguing on behalf of marriage being a license to reproduce, when society is free to reproduce without a marriage license and always has been.

Yes, you brought it up and I agree with you, except that you want two different styles of licenses, one to reproduce which has already been discussed as pointless on its face, and the second which you want to confine to gay people, when in reality, that is all that any marriage license is.

Heterosexuals do not need a marriage license from the government to reproduce and bear children. So from a legal point of view, there is no difference between the two documents.

I agree with everything else you said. Several years ago when I blogged on this subject on another forum, I made the suggestion that the government license be a simple license as I've discussed above for legal and financial matters. For those who want a religious type of Marriage document, what I called then the Holy Marriage License, that the church or religious organization they choose to marry them, develop their own Holy Marriage License to follow the state issued marriage license, and issue it through the church organization instead of asking a secular government to do what it can not do without discriminating against gay couples. There is no reason to involve the government in the Holy Marriage matter at all.

Originally Posted by Judy

No, you are arguing for something that doesn't exist. You are arguing on behalf of marriage being a license to reproduce, when society is free to reproduce without a marriage license and always has been.

Originally Posted by Judy

Heterosexuals do not need a marriage license from the government to reproduce and bear children. ...

It is not against the law to have children out of wedlock, but it is not true that there are no legal obligations involved in child bearing that differ whether the parents are married or not. Paternity is a huge legal issue. Marriage and paternity are huge legal issues. Again, heterosexual behavior is the orientation of these legal obligations and observations.

Originally Posted by Judy

Yes, you brought it up and I agree with you, except that you want two different styles of licenses, one to reproduce which has already been discussed as pointless on its face, and the second which you want to confine to gay people, when in reality, that is all that any marriage license is.

Not true, you are not even reading my posts completely. I very precisely explain that such a contract could be used by absolutely anyone who wishes to form such a contract outside of child bearing.

It remains. Marriage as observed by law is a heterosexual institution that provides legal observation for bearing and raising children. Homosexuals do not need the same institution for unions between individuals and should stay away from marriage as it exists as a legal institution. Some other solution is required and such a solution could be useful to everyone.

What do you mean about paternity? Paternity has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Government rounds up dates who a woman claims got her pregnant, and they test them all to find the Baby Daddy, because she wants to sign up for Medicaid to pay for it, and when they strike pay dirt, they force this boy or man to pay the state child support for a child they didn't want and didn't even know they had with a woman they probably can't even remember having sex with.

What am I missing on "paternity" and "marriage licenses"? Marriage licenses don't address paternity. Paternity is covered by paternity and DNA laws and they apply the same to gays and heterosexuals. Again, gays can reproduce and there are lots of children with gay parents because there are lots of gays who married heterosexuals and had kids. I can't think of anything sadder for a woman to have unknowingly married a gay man, found some way to have children with him, only to learn years later after she's wasted many years of her life with a man who found her disgusting from that standpoint, that her husband and love of her life was gay. Same is true for a man who unknowingly marries a lesbian.

When society tries to force an issue against the nature of people, it's never a good thing. You can't force people to be something they aren't. It distorts the natural order when people want to use government to force issues like this. Just let people be who they are instead of trying to corral them into something they aren't and can't be.

Originally Posted by Judy

What do you mean about paternity? Paternity has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. ...

Well, you are just babbling at this point. You are Sustaining the Narrative.

We are just scratching the surface of the problem. What about those claiming to be the opposite sex after transgender surgery? Does the law recognize the marriage of a man and a man who claims to be a woman after transgender surgery? What if the man is so clueless as to not know the woman he marries is really a man? What if they planned to have children? Transgender males are incapable of functioning like a woman and that means especially bearing children. Not only is that hole in the guy's crotch not a vagina, there is no uterus at the other end.

In the history of human existence, where ever you go in the broad universe of human existence, you find ritual and social norms to govern the sexual relations between men and women who want to raise a family. Even where homosexual relations are accepted, still do heterosexual unions enjoy an exceptional status.

It works and everyone should respect that.

This is exactly why I have not been posting on this site any more. It had nothing to do with who won the primary (Cruz or Trump). It had to do with the feeling that this became a one person blog and if you just happened to have a different opinion then that person, then the battle was on. I was here because I am against illegal immigration, not to fight over every issue. If someone makes a comment on taxes, abortion or gay marriages, does that require a full blown battle?

Originally Posted by pkskyali

Well, you are just babbling at this point. You are Sustaining the Narrative.

We are just scratching the surface of the problem. What about those claiming to be the opposite sex after transgender surgery? Does the law recognize the marriage of a man and a man who claims to be a woman after transgender surgery? What if the man is so clueless as to not know the woman he marries is really a man? What if they planned to have children? Transgender males are incapable of functioning like a woman and that means especially bearing children. Not only is that hole in the guy's crotch not a vagina, there is no uterus at the other end.

In the history of human existence, where ever you go in the broad universe of human existence, you find ritual and social norms to govern the sexual relations between men and women who want to raise a family. Even where homosexual relations are accepted, still do heterosexual unions enjoy an exceptional status.

It works and everyone should respect that.

You raise a good point about the transgender marriage, and I don't know how these couples deal with that. I suppose the same way any couple does that can't have children of their own.

MontereySherry excerpt:

It had to do with the feeling that this became a one person blog and if you just happened to have a different opinion then that person, then the battle was on.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

This is exactly why I have not been posting on this site any more. It had nothing to do with who won the primary (Cruz or Trump). It had to do with the feeling that this became a one person blog and if you just happened to have a different opinion then that person, then the battle was on. I was here because I am against illegal immigration, not to fight over every issue. If someone makes a comment on taxes, abortion or gay marriages, does that require a full blown battle?

It's hard to see what your objections are about. All the posts here are entirely on topic. And nobody seems to have any objections as to whether the topic itself in the right place.

It's also hard to see why you could possibly imagine that anybody's posting here is turning the site into a one person blog. I don't post nearly as much as most people here. Judy posts far more than me and even there it is hard to accuse Judy of monopolizing the site.

The whole point of a site such is this is to allow people to express their opinions and correspond with people who either agree or disagree. Or to be ignore altogether.

If you really object to a post, you should report it to the administrator by clicking a little red triangle below your avatar.