Nani?
So you’re saying a deist like myself could never have a successful marriage?
Because it has never been tried.
Every republic that has ever existed, from our own to the multiple republics of France, have always went the “equity” route and the idea of special privileges for some while oppressing others.
WuWei
244
Obergfell was unnecessary. Hell, Loving was unnecessary.
komobu
245
So Masterpiece Bakery has to make a gay wedding cake because they make them for traditional weddings?
Did you forget all libs think the same?
1 Like
Jezcoe
247
I am surprised to learn that my atheist marriage is meaningless.
No. Read my post again.
Private enterprise is not subject to the same obligations as public enterprise.
Individual citizens can discriminate. The government cannot discriminate against any of its citizens. It’s government of the people. Not government of some people.
It’s why I’m opposed to public accommodation laws and would like to see them done away with.
I’ve always hated that line of thinking.
“You can’t have a successful marriage because you aren’t invoking God.”
Then I turn around the other way and look at the religious faith of the majority of divorcees and that blows that entire idea out of the water.
1 Like
Ant say I obeyed my own suggestion there either. But I will say my wife and I just celebrated our 30th anniversary. Took A LOT of work and commitment at times.
I tend to believe in general that all too often when couples say “I LOVE YOU”, it really means “I LUST YOU”. After the sex becomes routine or boring the wife discovers her husband is a selfish slob and/or he discover she’s a nagging shrew. Usually though this is after they’ve had kids.
Sex blinds people and brings about feelings that are not necessarily based on the right things. Learn the things first, then commit to a relationship and accountability higher than each other. Learn the difference between being “in love” and loving.
That’s what obeying God brings to a marriage.
Just my 2 cents worth…
1 Like
komobu
251
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were a free association kind of guy and when I read that post it confused me when you used the term “Institutions of the people” I could see that as being a church or a company, and not just a government entity. That’s why I asked for clarification.
Well that’s optimistic.
Most people go into relationships having already “done the deed” before. They have expectations and ideas on what they like and dislike.
It would make sense to figure out if those likes and dislikes are compatible or negotiable before putting yourself in a situation where they can easily take half of your livelihood. Goes for both men and women.
Guvnah
254
I’ll reiterate. At least as it pertains to my position, it’s not about sticking it to anyone.
All the benefits and tax breaks come at a cost to the government entity granting them. Why should a government do that in the first place? What is the government expecting to encourage or generate? Giving benefits “just because” is bad government.
In my opinion, removing government benefits for marriage stops “sticking it” to the government. (And to the rest of taxpayers who fund that government.)
I should have clarified.
Free association is one of the core backbones of my ideology. No one should be forced to associate with anyone they do not wish to. For any reason.
1 Like
it already is a right, just like abortion, where the right was taken back.
Allan
Well that’s a little more complicated than just saying that it is a right.
There’s a middle road compromise somewhere.
Well it can’t be more than 6000 years
1 Like
“I’m not against gay marriage, I’m just again government benefits and tax breaks that married people get.”
Why can’t we all just be like, “Gay people should be able to get married.” because it’s the right ■■■■■■■ thing to do.
1 Like
