This is how EVERY democrat feels.

[fatman76]

Two biggest problems in this country are these:

1. Trump is infallible (far right)
2. The country is morally unredeemable (progressives)

Both are hard to solve because both are a matter of faith and belief.

both are also easy to solve in that it is just a belief.

The group of people that truly think Trump is infallible is really, really small.

The reason he is so popular with so many on the right is the fact he’s not part of the system. As a rich outsider he’s not making deals with Ukraine and China to get rich. He, most of the time, made the decision that was best for the county. Swamprat lifelong politicians don’t do that very often.

I think you’re mistaking being a breath of fresh air with being infallible. DeSantis falls in a similar category, as does Kari Lake.

 

[jfegaly]

Mostly agree...but what about health care? Can she get benefits from her wife's policy?

What about inheritance? Does she get her wife's property upon her demise? What about Social Security?

What about child custody? If the (pardon the expression, it makes sense here) birth mom dies, does her wife get custody of their children?

Many of those things should be handled by legal documents (a will etc) IMO. Such as custody, inheritance, property. Healthcare should be written policy by insurer with whomever one wants on policy, and that doesn’t change much IMO. Just for comparisons sake, I am a disabled vet with champva insurance for my kids. When I die…yeah, they get zip.

Lastly, social security. What a scam. So, we give our money to the government so that they can hold it for me, invest it for me, so that one day, when I live to 140 years old, they can give me some peanuts. No thanks. This program is awful. As a libertarian, I don’t even believe in this type of garbage, but let’s say I did for a second. IF, and I realize there ate other factors, we wanted folks to have retirement money because we believed they were too irresponsible to do it themselves, then force folks to put their “social security” into their own private account, that the government cannot access, and the individual cannot access until X age.

But that’s not what social security is about, and if one doesn’t know that by now….

anyway. Just my two cents

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

On marriage, as long as you give all the same advantages (tax, estate, benefits) then fine. Call it whatever you like. But it is none of our business who they choose to partner with. That's for God to judge, not man.

Nah, hopefully Justice Thomas gets a bite at the Obergefell ruling and sends it back to the states. TN constitution says 1 man and 1 woman.

Marriage is a regulated privilege like driving.

As for God, He has judged and warned. NATIONS that support homosexuality will eventually be punished as a WHOLE for supporting it. This is a communal sin and you do NOT get a pass.

Also as soon as it was legalized via fiat, who was immediately attacked? Christian business persons. Cowinkydink? Nope this is water and oil.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

Many of those things should be handled by legal documents (a will etc) IMO. Such as custody, inheritance, property. Healthcare should be written policy by insurer with whomever one wants on policy, and that doesn’t change much IMO. Just for comparisons sake, I am a disabled vet with champva insurance for my kids. When I die…yeah, they get zip.

Lastly, social security. What a scam. So, we give our money to the government so that they can hold it for me, invest it for me, so that one day, when I live to 140 years old, they can give me some peanuts. No thanks. This program is awful. As a libertarian, I don’t even believe in this type of garbage, but let’s say I did for a second. IF, and I realize there ate other factors, we wanted folks to have retirement money because we believed they were too irresponsible to do it themselves, then force folks to put their “social security” into their own private account, that the government cannot access, and the individual cannot access until X age.

But that’s not what social security is about, and if one doesn’t know that by now….

anyway. Just my two cents

Fair Tax is the way to go. Property tax should be abolished as well.

Imagine if you could save a third of your income for 3 years and buy a house outright. In six years you have a home and need no insurance. Get down on your luck. No insurance property tax or mortgage means you have a guaranteed place to live. How much better would we all be if that was the case.

Invest as much as you can with no limits. Draw on it in emergencies and retire when you can.

Fed should stick to sound money and congress to its enumerated powers.

 

[jfegaly]

Nah, hopefully Justice Thomas gets a bite at the Obergefell ruling and sends it back to the states. TN constitution says 1 man and 1 woman.

Marriage is a regulated privilege like driving.

As for God, He has judged and warned. NATIONS that support homosexuality will eventually be punished as a WHOLE for supporting it. This is a communal sin and you do NOT get a pass.

Also as soon as it was legalized via fiat, who was immediately attacked? Christian business persons. Cowinkydink? Nope this is water and oil.

I can live with that, but still like the idea of leaving marriage in the churches per view. No government involvement in marriage, state or federal.

 

[jfegaly]

Fair Tax is the way to go. Property tax should be abolished as well.

Imagine if you could save a third of your income for 3 years and buy a house outright. In six years you have a home and need no insurance. Get down on your luck. No insurance property tax or mortgage means you have a guaranteed place to live. How much better would we all be if that was the case.

Invest as much as you can with no limits. Draw on it in emergencies and retire when you can.

Fed should stick to sound money and congress to its enumerated powers.

Bingo! Fair tax (consumption tax) is the way to go. This, is how everyone pays their fair share.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

I can live with that, but still like the idea of leaving marriage in the churches per view. No government involvement in marriage, state or federal.

People split up and the courts will get involved in the decisions over property and children regardless.

Now if the default is for the man to have the property and children unless infidelity is proven on his part then sure go for it.

Yep I am a traditionalist/patrician

It is usually the woman that files because she is "unhappy" that hubby isn't a Disney prince.

Make it hard to walk away or for either to cheat.

So sure if you can get the courts out of the "divorce" game I would support you in your quest.

 

[jfegaly]

People split up and the courts will get involved in the decisions over property and children regardless.

Now if the default is for the man to have the property and children unless infidelity is proven on his part then sure go for it.

Yep I am a traditionalist/patrician

It is usually the woman that files because she is "unhappy" that hubby isn't a Disney prince.

Make it hard to walk away or for either to cheat.

So sure if you can get the courts out of the "divorce" game I would support you in your quest.

I just want the government out of marriage because the Government consistently screws things up (see: where we are now)

As for the courts getting involved, as you so eloquently noted, whether folks are married or not, they are going to get involved…..so…no need for government involvement in marriage. 😉

 

[grandhavendiddy]

The group of people that truly think Trump is infallible is really, really small.

The reason he is so popular with so many on the right is the fact he’s not part of the system. As a rich outsider he’s not making deals with Ukraine and China to get rich. He, most of the time, made the decision that was best for the county. Swamprat lifelong politicians don’t do that very often.

I think you’re mistaking being a breath of fresh air with being infallible. DeSantis falls in a similar category, as does Kari Lake.

Terrific. This is a great post.

 

[grandhavendiddy]

I just want the government out of marriage because the Government consistently screws things up (see: where we are now)

As for the courts getting involved, as you so eloquently noted, whether folks are married or not, they are going to get involved…..so…no need for government involvement in marriage. 😉

Agree with most of this with the exception of that marriage for support of kids, overwhelming, is a determinant of long term success. If the tax code promotes social cohesion and success (which it can), then great.

Marxists (perhaps overemphasizing this) view it as an enemy of the state. BLM had to remove this from their website.

More important than DEI for most, is having a two parent household.

 

[grandhavendiddy]

By the way, good discussion on this thread. One can argue on the efficacy of one item versus another, but it is a good discussion.

Social Security is an example. Would I have been WAY better in investing my own money, almost no question - the problem is that so many never saved and thus seniors were thrust into poverty.

 

[jfegaly]

By the way, good discussion on this thread. One can argue on the efficacy of one item versus another, but it is a good discussion.

Social Security is an example. Would I have been WAY better in investing my own money, almost no question - the problem is that so many never saved and thus seniors were thrust into poverty.

As stated. If this was the goal (it wasn’t). Then just force people to pay for “social security” then setup auto draft just like taxes that go into my own government setup savings account that the government can never touch, and I can’t touch until I reach a certain age. Problem solved. But SS wasn’t about solving a problem. As a libertarian I don’t believe in any if this, but, it provides a better solution to the retirement issues

 

[jfegaly]

Agree with most of this with the exception of that marriage for support of kids, overwhelming, is a determinant of long term success. If the tax code promotes social cohesion and success (which it can), then great.

Marxists (perhaps overemphasizing this) view it as an enemy of the state. BLM had to remove this from their website.

More important than DEI for most, is having a two parent household.

Yes, it’s worked well so far, right? I wonder when the last time folks stayed together, for….”tax purposes”

I agree with your two parent household premise, but disagree with how you get there. You think the government can help regulate the numbers. I believe, and there are several studies that back this up…..that the gift of marriage, and definition of marriage comes from God. As such, studies show that those who are deeply involved in their faith, have lower divorce rates than those who aren’t deeply entrenched in faith, and those who have no faith. (Atheists etc). Yet another reason for it to remain with the church. When man thinks he is the solution (government) it almost always ends poorly.

Is the divorce rate among Christians truly the same as among non-Christians? | GotQuestions.org

Is the divorce rate among Christians truly the same as among non-Christians? Do Christians get divorced just as often as non-Christians?

www.gotquestions.org

Divorce Rate in the Church – As High as the World?

Couples who regularly practice any combination of serious religious behaviors and attitudes enjoy significantly lower divorce rates.

www.focusonthefamily.com

In a nutshell, one of us believes government is the solution, one of us believes they are the problem. I wonder, where most conservatives fall on that over simplification of the issue.

Just going to be direct. Jesus is the solution, not a politician, man, or Government.

 

[grandhavendiddy]

Primary - I think that individuals and their support networks make the largest difference. I am, at my core, a believer in DaVinci, Jefferson, Rationalist/Enlightenment thought, etc. I think Government can have a limited but powerful role - to a point. I distrust monopolies and oligopolies. I went to private schools - my two daughters just graduated from Christian schools and both go to Private colleges. Stanford/Vanderbilt and Hope. Faith and religion can have a massively positive effect.

So - my view is that the individual matters, one's faith matters and then the government can also help. Government is not primary - but it can hurt. For example, people may not stay together, but if they are able to save more, then they can pay for private schools, support churches, etc. that improve their outcome. So, Government can help.

I believe in School Choice.

I think most "evil" has been started and supported by governments and exploited by individuals. People want to tear down Jefferson's statues, but he helped unleash America from one of the most evil, corrupt governments of all time - the British Empire and Colonialism. 1619 was important - but it was a British not an American moment. 1776 was our moment.

Enough for this weekend. I appreciate the honest exchange.

 

[NavigatorII]

Yes, it’s worked well so far, right? I wonder when the last time folks stayed together, for….”tax purposes”

I agree with your two parent household premise, but disagree with how you get there. You think the government can help regulate the numbers. I believe, and there are several studies that back this up…..that the gift of marriage, and definition of marriage comes from God. As such, studies show that those who are deeply involved in their faith, have lower divorce rates than those who aren’t deeply entrenched in faith, and those who have no faith. (Atheists etc). Yet another reason for it to remain with the church. When man thinks he is the solution (government) it almost always ends poorly.

Is the divorce rate among Christians truly the same as among non-Christians? | GotQuestions.org

Is the divorce rate among Christians truly the same as among non-Christians? Do Christians get divorced just as often as non-Christians?

www.gotquestions.org

Divorce Rate in the Church – As High as the World?

Couples who regularly practice any combination of serious religious behaviors and attitudes enjoy significantly lower divorce rates.

www.focusonthefamily.com

In a nutshell, one of us believes government is the solution, one of us believes they are the problem. I wonder, where most conservatives fall on that over simplification of the issue.

Just going to be direct. Jesus is the solution, not a politician, man, or Government.

Actually more people have abstained from getting married in regard to couples with significant duel income for tax purposes. Why is that? Because progressive policies and taxation penalize couples in that situation. There is a "married filing separately" provision that while providing relief in a few situations, is still stealing money from taxpayer pockets. Leave to Dimtards to penalize the conventional institution of family and marriage. No surprise here.

 

[fatman76]

By the way, good discussion on this thread. One can argue on the efficacy of one item versus another, but it is a good discussion.

Social Security is an example. Would I have been WAY better in investing my own money, almost no question - the problem is that so many never saved and thus seniors were thrust into poverty.

If you’re younger than 55 your return will likely be zero….so the math is simple

 

[BamaFan1137]

Many of those things should be handled by legal documents (a will etc) IMO. Such as custody, inheritance, property. Healthcare should be written policy by insurer with whomever one wants on policy, and that doesn’t change much IMO. Just for comparisons sake, I am a disabled vet with champva insurance for my kids. When I die…yeah, they get zip.

Lastly, social security. What a scam. So, we give our money to the government so that they can hold it for me, invest it for me, so that one day, when I live to 140 years old, they can give me some peanuts. No thanks. This program is awful. As a libertarian, I don’t even believe in this type of garbage, but let’s say I did for a second. IF, and I realize there ate other factors, we wanted folks to have retirement money because we believed they were too irresponsible to do it themselves, then force folks to put their “social security” into their own private account, that the government cannot access, and the individual cannot access until X age.

But that’s not what social security is about, and if one doesn’t know that by now….

anyway. Just my two cents

Ok but why do gay parents need a will or other legal documents for things like inheritance or child custody? All I'm saying is give them equal protection under the law.

You don't have to agree with their lifestyle. And I'm not talking about special protection. I'm talking about the same protection under our laws as any couple. That makes sense. Judgment is not ours to make.

 

[jfegaly]

Ok but why do gay parents need a will or other legal documents for things like inheritance or child custody? All I'm saying is give them equal protection under the law.

You don't have to agree with their lifestyle. And I'm not talking about special protection. I'm talking about the same protection under our laws as any couple. That makes sense. Judgment is not ours to make.

Huh? Everyone should have a will.

I am not saying anyone should be treated differently. Just that government shouldnt be involved, and that everyone should have wills for all legal matters (especially inheritance and custody preferences). No one is singled out in what I have stated, and all are still treated equal by the Government.

No one is making judgement either. I have no clue at this point how to really address what you’re saying, because it feels like we aren’t discussing the same issues?

All people, gay, trans, hetero, should have a will.

IMO, marriage should be left up to the church with no government licenses, tax benefits etc…

How is that judgement, or treating folks differently?

How to Manage Family Finances in 2024

You're not imagining it—the price of everything, from eggs to childcare, has spiked in recent years. Still, with the right budget, your family can thrive—here's how.

www.parents.com

In my view, my belief comes from faith, and because of that, I want God and the Church as the arbiter of marriage. Let’s get the moral fabric of America back, and watch the healing begin.

I guess I would ask, are you a believer?

 

[EvilWayz]

I guess I would ask, are you a believer?

Oh shitfire, it's on now.

*grabs popcorn*

 

[jfegaly]

Oh shitfire, it's on now.

*grabs popcorn*

Oh yas!!!

politics + religion

 

[BamaFan1137]

Huh? Everyone should have a will.

That would be wise. The vast majority of people do not have wills unless they're very old or terminally ill. Under your preference, gay couples would need a will more than straight couples. You get that, right? And wills are no guarantee. They can be contested.

When two people are married and one of them dies, the other obviously gets custody of the children and ownership of the marital property. However, if you don't allow gay people to be married, they won't have those same rights. Custody and property are FAR from secured in that scenario.

All people, gay, trans, hetero, should have a will

We should all visit our doctors twice a year and limit red meat, fatty foods and exercise daily. You'd agree most people don't, of course.

I guess I would ask, are you a believer?

Yes, I am a Christian. Yes I believe homosexuality is a sin. However, I absolutely know that I have no place judging another's sin. That is between them and God, not you, me or any other mortal.

I believe in a just God. If I believe He is just then I know He doesn't want or need my help regarding said judgment. In fact He simply wants me to love them.

 

[jfegaly]

That would be wise. The vast majority of people do not have wills unless they're very old or terminally ill. Under your preference, gay couples would need a will more than straight couples. You get that, right? And wills are no guarantee. They can be contested.

When two people are married and one of them dies, the other obviously gets custody of the children and ownership of the marital property. However, if you don't allow gay people to be married, they won't have those same rights. Custody and property are FAR from secured in that scenario.



We should all visit our doctors twice a year and limit red meat, fatty foods and exercise daily. You'd agree most people don't, of course.




Yes, I am a Christian. Yes I believe homosexuality is a sin. However, I absolutely know that I have no place judging another's sin. That is between them and God, not you, me or any other mortal.

I believe in a just God. If I believe He is just then I know He doesn't want or need my help regarding said judgment. In fact He simply wants me to love them.

I can see we are very far off in what we are discussing.

1. i provided evidence that no matter your sexual preference, one still needs a will to assist them/provide more evidence in governance of their estate matters, custody etc. So no, gay couples don’t need them more than straight couples. Whether you want to believe that or not, is not up to me.

2. Personal responsibility is needed. So, it’s nobody’s fault but ones self for not going to a dr.

3. God is a just God. It is his job to judge, and not ours. We are all sinners daily. But he also guides us in life by showing us examples of what we should do. I LOVE my children. But, Love isn’t always just hugs and kisses, and acceptance of their bad behavior. As much as I would like that, because emotionally it’s much easier. Love is punishing my children when appropriate so that they learn and have a solid foundation. Love is hugging them when appropriate. Love is Jesus flipping over tables and showing displeasure at how his church was allowing and promoting sin in his church. Love takes many forms, and sometimes it’s so difficult it doesn’t seem like love.

Love isn’t always what one defines it as, but rather….WWJD.

Last question. Where do we get our moral compass that says, we accept homosexuality, (who are we to judge) but we do not accept pedophilia? Just curious.

Take care and stay safe brother. Happy 4th and thank you for your service

 

[BamaFan1137]

1. i provided evidence that no matter your sexual preference, one still needs a will to assist them/provide more evidence in governance of their estate matters, custody etc. So no, gay couples don’t need them more than straight couples. Whether you want to believe that or not, is not up to me.

Lots to disagree with but I'll focus on just these parts.

If you only allow heterosexual marriage, only heterosexuals would receive protection for custody and property upon the death of their spouse.

That means gay people, who are unable to be married, would not have such protection. So no, you didn't provide evidence disproving the above facts.

You stated we should all just get wills. And getting a will would be wise...but wills still are not the guarantee that marriage provides. The will thing is a red herring you offered because you recognize that the treatment between straight and gay couples would be different otherwise. I'm telling you it would be different even if they had wills.

AND IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF GAY PEOPLE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE WILLS WHEREAS STRAIGHT PEOPLE WOULD NOT.

I LOVE my children. But, Love isn’t always just hugs and kisses, and acceptance of their bad behavior. As much as I would like that, because emotionally it’s much easier. Love is punishing my children when appropriate so that they learn and have a solid foundation. Love is hugging them when appropriate. Love is Jesus flipping over tables and showing displeasure at how his church was allowing and promoting sin in his church. Love takes many forms, and sometimes it’s so difficult it doesn’t seem like love.

How you raise your children (sounds similar to how I raise mine ftr) has no bearing on equal treatment under the law.

We don't get to decide for other people. You don't get a say. Neither do I. That is between them and God. If they ask you for guidance, there's your in. But you cannot deny people rights based on such things in this country based on your beliefs (which I mostly share with you).

 

[jfegaly]

Lots to disagree with but I'll focus on just these parts.

If you only allow heterosexual marriage, only heterosexuals would receive protection for custody and property upon the death of their spouse.

That means gay people, who are unable to be married, would not have such protection. So no, you didn't provide evidence disproving the above facts.

You stated we should all just get wills. And getting a will would be wise...but wills still are not the guarantee that marriage provides. The will thing is a red herring you offered because you recognize that the treatment between straight and gay couples would be different otherwise. I'm telling you it would be different even if they had wills.

AND IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF GAY PEOPLE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE WILLS WHEREAS STRAIGHT PEOPLE WOULD NOT.




How you raise your children (sounds similar to how I raise mine ftr) has no bearing on equal treatment under the law.

We don't get to decide for other people. You don't get a say. Neither do I. That is between them and God. If they ask you for guidance, there's your in. But you cannot deny people rights based on such things in this country based on your beliefs (which I mostly share with you).

First, I stated it should be left up to the church since marriage begins in Genesis, between a man and a woman, but I digress. We should have bureaucrats involved for some reason. Sounds like for finances and child allocation. Weird take, but ok.

Yes, we should ALL get wills. Regardless of sexual preference. Not sure why you keep inferring I stated just homosexuals? You asked what should be done about custodial situations snd inheritence. Google it, and tell me what you find the recommendations to be for EVERYONE. Apparently you don’t want or like the articles backing that up. It’s no red herring at all. I provided links with evidence to support what I was stating, you provided…. Your opinion. It might be a good time to figure out which cliché s to use sir.


As for what we get to decide…..

Last question. Where do we get our moral compass that says, we accept homosexuality, (who are we to judge/decide) but we do not accept pedophilia? Just curious where the line gets drawn, and what decides where we draw the line? If the law changes to allow sex with minors…do we change our “judgyness” for a lack of a better term. Along with societal changes?

 

[EvilWayz]

First, I stated it should be left up to the church since marriage begins in Genesis, between a man and a woman, but I digress. We should have bureaucrats involved for some reason. Sounds like for finances and child allocation. Weird take, but ok.

Yes, we should ALL get wills. Regardless of sexual preference. Not sure why you keep inferring I stated just homosexuals? You asked what should be done about custodial situations snd inheritence. Google it, and tell me what you find the recommendations to be for EVERYONE. Apparently you don’t want or like the articles backing that up. It’s no red herring at all. I provided links with evidence to support what I was stating, you provided…. Your opinion. It might be a good time to figure out which cliché s to use sir.


As for what we get to decide…..

Last question. Where do we get our moral compass that says, we accept homosexuality, (who are we to judge/decide) but we do not accept pedophilia? Just curious where the line gets drawn, and what decides where we draw the line? If the law changes to allow sex with minors…do we change our “judgyness” for a lack of a better term. Along with societal changes?

What a ridiculous argument. What two grown ass consenting adults do in their own bedroom is none of your damn business.

Minors can't give consent.

There's the line.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

The group of people that truly think Trump is infallible is really, really small.

The reason he is so popular with so many on the right is the fact he’s not part of the system. As a rich outsider he’s not making deals with Ukraine and China to get rich. He, most of the time, made the decision that was best for the county. Swamprat lifelong politicians don’t do that very often.

I think you’re mistaking being a breath of fresh air with being infallible. DeSantis falls in a similar category, as does Kari Lake.

@grandhavendiddy hates him some Trump. Ironic that he projects his mariginal behavior onto his supporters, instead of looking in the mirror.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

As for what we get to decide…..

Last question. Where do we get our moral compass that says, we accept homosexuality, (who are we to judge/decide) but we do not accept pedophilia? Just curious where the line gets drawn, and what decides where we draw the line? If the law changes to allow sex with minors…do we change our “judgyness” for a lack of a better term. Along with societal changes?

Agree with this. A lot of people confuse clarifying the sin with judging the sinner. Two completely different concepts.

Homosexuality is a sin. God's word is quite clear on this.

 

[jfegaly]

Agree with this. A lot of people confuse clarifying the sin with judging the sinner. Two completely different concepts.

Homosexuality is a sin. God's word is quite clear on this.

Correct sir. Judging gets overused, and misunderstood.

 

[jfegaly]

E a ridiculous argument. What two grown ass consenting adults do in their own bedroom is none of your damn business.

Minors can't give consent.

There's the line.

Of course. But what if the line gets moved as it did with homosexuality. There was a time, that was the line. Same for the trans issue . Men playing womens sports was a line.

Not teaching kids in kindergarten about sexual orientation (they can’t give consent, remember 5-6 year olds) there’s the line right? Or I guess we know the left isn’t pushing the line on this, right?

point is still the damn same. Where do we, according to Bama, get to draw the line of, in his words “judgement”. Again, judgement is the wrong word to use and is a flawed argument in this case.

And I never said it was my damn business, just that marriage, which began in Genesis, should be left out of the Hands of Government.

As for the incorrect take on judgement…,

Can Christians Judge Gay “Marriage”?

We must make sure we are judging righteously from God’s Word and not relying on our own opinion.

answersingenesis.org

 

[BamaFan1137]

First, I stated it should be left up to the church since marriage begins in Genesis, between a man and a woman, but I digress. We should have bureaucrats involved for some reason. Sounds like for finances and child allocation. Weird take, but ok.

Yes, we should ALL get wills. Regardless of sexual preference. Not sure why you keep inferring I stated just homosexuals? You asked what should be done about custodial situations snd inheritence. Google it, and tell me what you find the recommendations to be for EVERYONE. Apparently you don’t want or like the articles backing that up. It’s no red herring at all. I provided links with evidence to support what I was stating, you provided…. Your opinion. It might be a good time to figure out which cliché s to use sir.


As for what we get to decide…..

Last question. Where do we get our moral compass that says, we accept homosexuality, (who are we to judge/decide) but we do not accept pedophilia? Just curious where the line gets drawn, and what decides where we draw the line? If the law changes to allow sex with minors…do we change our “judgyness” for a lack of a better term. Along with societal changes?

You've gone strawman on pedophilia. Protecting a minor from sex with an adult is NOT the same as protecting parental rights of married couples. You don't favor homosexuality, and I get that and even agree with it, but we don't get to have unequal protection under the law in this country based on our biases.

I don't need to Google the child custody and inheritance laws. It's unfortunately something that I deal with very regularly.

We don't live in a theocracy. I'm a Christian but I'm glad that we don't. You're saying get government out of marriage but we are a nation of laws. If the church says gay people can't marry then our LAWS would reflect the differences between married couples and unmarried couples for things like child custody and property. That doesn’t remove the government from the situation...it just changes it to your liking.

I'll leave it at that since we don't seem to be making any progress here.

 

[EvilWayz]

Of course. But what if the line gets moved as it did with homosexuality. There was a time, that was the line. Same for the trans issue . Men playing womens sports was a line.

Not teaching kids in kindergarten about sexual orientation (they can’t give consent, remember 5-6 year olds) there’s the line right? Or I guess we know the left isn’t pushing the line on this, right?

point is still the damn same. Where do we, according to Bama, get to draw the line of, in his words “judgement”. Again, judgement is the wrong word to use and is a flawed argument in this case.

And I never said it was my damn business, just that marriage, which began in Genesis, should be left out of the Hands of Government.

As for the incorrect take on judgement…,

Can Christians Judge Gay “Marriage”?

We must make sure we are judging righteously from God’s Word and not relying on our own opinion.

answersingenesis.org

I'm not fixin to argue what your religion says, it's your religion, follow it however you like.

Marriage is not unique to Christianity.

The line doesn't move. Trans people who are adults should be free to dress up however they want and be he/she/they.

Gay people can do whatever they want as long as its consensual with adults.

Minors can't give consent. That applies to the left pushing discussions of sexual orientation when it's none of their damn business, grooming, child trafficking, child abuse, child sexual abuse.

I've already outlined my feelings on marriage, if it's religious the government should butt the f*ck out and not confer special privileges on married people. If its governmental, then you can't deny any American the right to marry because you think what they do is icky and against your religion. That still doesn't mean the government should be able to force a church to marry someone in direct violation of their faith.

And you can judge all you want. Just don't apply it to legislation.

 

[BamaFan1137]

As for the incorrect take on judgement…,

Can Christians Judge Gay “Marriage”?

We must make sure we are judging righteously from God’s Word and not relying on our own opinion.

answersingenesis.org

As for your last sentence, you'll note that I too said homosexuality is a sin. I believe the behavior is sinful. The judgement said sinners will face is none of my business and not my purview.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Agree with this. A lot of people confuse clarifying the sin with judging the sinner. Two completely different concepts.

Homosexuality is a sin. God's word is quite clear on this.

I said exactly the same above of course.

 

[BamaFan1137]

And you can judge all you want. Just don't apply it to legislation

My position summed up in a single sentence. Well said.

 

[jfegaly]

I'm not fixin to argue what your religion says, it's your religion, follow it however you like.

Marriage is not unique to Christianity.

The line doesn't move. Trans people who are adults should be free to dress up however they want and be he/she/they.

Gay people can do whatever they want as long as its consensual with adults.

Minors can't give consent. That applies to the left pushing discussions of sexual orientation when it's none of their damn business, grooming, child trafficking, child abuse, child sexual abuse.

I've already outlined my feelings on marriage, if it's religious the government should butt the f*ck out and not confer special privileges on married people. If its governmental, then you can't deny any American the right to marry because you think what they do is icky and against your religion. That still doesn't mean the government should be able to force a church to marry someone in direct violation of their faith.

And you can judge all you want. Just don't apply it to legislation.

Last sentence. I agree, I don’t want ANY legislation regarding marriage. That’s been my stance all along.

FWIW. IMO I agree, the line doesn’t move in my world, but in THE world, like it or not, it does. Which is why I asked the question in the first place.

😉

 

[jfegaly]

My position summed up in a single sentence. Well said.

So we agree. We shouldn’t be using legislation to “judge”. Legislation should not judge what marriage is defined as.
As I have stated numerous times, we wouldn’t be having this discussion if ghe Government weren’t trying to do so.

Defining marriage… That was done by the word of God.

 

[jfegaly]

I said exactly the same above of course.

You mean in your post where you said “who am I to judge”?

 

[jfegaly]

You've gone strawman on pedophilia. Protecting a minor from sex with an adult is NOT the same as protecting parental rights of married couples. You don't favor homosexuality, and I get that and even agree with it, but we don't get to have unequal protection under the law in this country based on our biases.

I don't need to Google the child custody and inheritance laws. It's unfortunately something that I deal with very regularly.

We don't live in a theocracy. I'm a Christian but I'm glad that we don't. You're saying get government out of marriage but we are a nation of laws. If the church says gay people can't marry then our LAWS would reflect the differences between married couples and unmarried couples for things like child custody and property. That doesn’t remove the government from the situation...it just changes it to your liking.

I'll leave it at that since we don't seem to be making any progress here.

Man you love your cliches. You are missing the point entirely. Your morality is drawn from somewhere sir. Where? You said “who am I to judge”. Not me. We are talking “judgement” using your words, not mine.

My question didn’t have to do with laws, because laws can change, as mans moral compass changes. Just look at homosexuality. That changed, and laws changed. We are already seeing things change with minors….see the battle going on in Florida. So, if and when our Politicians change the age of consent…..who are you to judge

I am asking you a very simple question, that you still haven’t answered for some reason.

Where do we get our moral compass that says, we accept homosexuality, (who are we to judge/decide) but we do not accept pedophilia? Just curious where the line gets drawn, and what decides where we draw the line? If the law changes to allow sex with minors…do we change our “judgyness” for a lack of a better term. Along with societal changes?

Again, using your words, not mine. Who are we to judge?

Lastly, I don’t believe you are disputing anything I have said on custodial rights. The recommendation for EVERYONE is to have a will, because anything can happen sir.

 

[EvilWayz]

So, if and when our Politicians change the age of consent…..who are you to judge

In 33 states, the age of consent is 16. As far as I'm concerned, a 16 year old is a child. Not happy about that.

 

[jfegaly]

In 33 states, the age of consent is 16. As far as I'm concerned, a 16 year old is a child. Not happy about that.

Me either sir. Not happy at all. But who am I to judge. 😉

IMO dems will do everything they can to lower it. Again, see the battle in Florida. That’s why I brought it up sir.

Gotta influence minds before they are developed.