Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 112

Thread: My Official Position on Conservative Candidates Signing onto the NOM Pledge

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    13,856
    Thanks
    3,380
    Thanked 1,282 Times in 1,154 Posts
    Groans
    1,258
    Groaned 699 Times in 637 Posts

    Default My Official Position on Conservative Candidates Signing onto the NOM Pledge

    Statement of Fact

    In signing NOM's marriage pledge, Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum pledged to:

    • Support and send to the states a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman,
    • Defend DOMA in court,
    • Appoint judges and an attorney general who will respect the original meaning of the Constitution,
    • Appoint a presidential commission to investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters,
    • Support legislation that would return to the people of D.C. their right to vote for marriage.
    Source



    Analysis and Position

    Like it or not this country was founded on religious principles. We claim inalienable rights given to us by our Creator. Then we secured the Blessings of liberty by forming a limited government to protect those rights.

    Legal marriage isn't a right; it is a privilege recognized by State governments through the licensing process because it is extremely helpful to society. Stable marriages produce fine children who form the next generation of leaders, therefore it stabilizes society. It's the same reason why we license doctors, plumbers, engineers and lawyers. If you are deemed qualified for a license then the state grants you the privilege.

    Homosexual relationships are inherently as well as statistically less stable and they can't naturally produce children. Some argue that licensing would add to the stability of these relationships and I recognize that. However marriage, unlike the professions, also has a religious component, so it doesn't make sense to defy the very basis of our national claim, that of inalienable rights, if we are at the same time defying our Creator.

    A reasonable and rational solution would be for States to provide a licensing venue for monogamous homosexual relationships, with the same privileges, but a different term, then the word "marriage".

    Adherence to the NOM pledge does nothing to prevent this. It merely provides a uniform standard for the definition of traditional marriage, thereby recognizing its importance to a stable society.

  2. #2 | Top
    WinterBorn Guest

    Default

    So its ok if we have gay marriage as long as we don't call it gay marriage? So its semantics.

    I think we should send our elected officials instructions to get the gov't out of the marriage business completely.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to WinterBorn For This Post:

    Don Quixote (08-14-2011)

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    24,019
    Thanks
    27,497
    Thanked 10,225 Times in 7,002 Posts
    Groans
    679
    Groaned 905 Times in 840 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    WB, meaning government should only do civil unions? marriages or to use the word you need be married by a religious ceremony?
    First, we need to grieve that in our world there even needs to be a journey toward women’s living as the equal beings they already are.
    Judith Barr 2013

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    24,019
    Thanks
    27,497
    Thanked 10,225 Times in 7,002 Posts
    Groans
    679
    Groaned 905 Times in 840 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    If government isn't involved how would non religious person join together? A contract?
    First, we need to grieve that in our world there even needs to be a journey toward women’s living as the equal beings they already are.
    Judith Barr 2013

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    37,108
    Thanks
    9,855
    Thanked 7,606 Times in 5,546 Posts
    Groans
    561
    Groaned 685 Times in 648 Posts

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Lt Surge For This Post:

    DamnYankee (08-13-2011)

  8. #6 | Top
    WinterBorn Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rana View Post
    WB, meaning government should only do civil unions? marriages or to use the word you need be married by a religious ceremony?
    Rana, the entire "licencing of marriage" thing by the gov't is meddling where it does not belong. A simple civil union for everyone would be the best. If they get a religious ceremony in addition to that civil union, that would be fine. But cut the gov't interference to the absolute minimum.

  9. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    13,856
    Thanks
    3,380
    Thanked 1,282 Times in 1,154 Posts
    Groans
    1,258
    Groaned 699 Times in 637 Posts

    Default

    "The Congress shall have Power To... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States..."

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

  10. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    30,289
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    your entire position is fail because of the following statement.

    "Legal marriage isn't a right; it is a privilege recognized by State governments through the licensing process because it is extremely helpful to society."

    The right to form a union, procreate, raise offspring is an inherent natural right, NOT a privilege granted by the government.
    You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered. —LYNDON B. JOHNSON

  11. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    13,856
    Thanks
    3,380
    Thanked 1,282 Times in 1,154 Posts
    Groans
    1,258
    Groaned 699 Times in 637 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    your entire position is fail because of the following statement.

    "Legal marriage isn't a right; it is a privilege recognized by State governments through the licensing process because it is extremely helpful to society."

    The right to form a union, procreate, raise offspring is an inherent natural right, NOT a privilege granted by the government.
    I notice that legal marriage isn't in the list that you, yourself, are proclaiming as natural rights.

  12. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    30,289
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damn Yankee View Post
    I notice that legal marriage isn't in the list that you, yourself, are proclaiming as natural rights.
    legal or illegal cannot apply to an inherent natural right.
    You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered. —LYNDON B. JOHNSON

  13. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    13,856
    Thanks
    3,380
    Thanked 1,282 Times in 1,154 Posts
    Groans
    1,258
    Groaned 699 Times in 637 Posts

    Default

    I agree, but marriage isn't on your list.

  14. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,384
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damn Yankee View Post
    Statement of Fact

    Source

    Analysis and Position

    Like it or not this country was founded on religious principles. We claim inalienable rights given to us by our Creator. Then we secured the Blessings of liberty by forming a limited government to protect those rights.

    Legal marriage isn't a right; it is a privilege recognized by State governments through the licensing process because it is extremely helpful to society. Stable marriages produce fine children who form the next generation of leaders, therefore it stabilizes society. It's the same reason why we license doctors, plumbers, engineers and lawyers. If you are deemed qualified for a license then the state grants you the privilege.

    Homosexual relationships are inherently as well as statistically less stable and they can't naturally produce children. Some argue that licensing would add to the stability of these relationships and I recognize that. However marriage, unlike the professions, also has a religious component, so it doesn't make sense to defy the very basis of our national claim, that of inalienable rights, if we are at the same time defying our Creator.

    A reasonable and rational solution would be for States to provide a licensing venue for monogamous homosexual relationships, with the same privileges, but a different term, then the word "marriage".

    Adherence to the NOM pledge does nothing to prevent this. It merely provides a uniform standard for the definition of traditional marriage, thereby recognizing its importance to a stable society.

    A reasonable and rational solution would be for States to provide a licensing venue for monogamous homosexual relationships, with the same privileges, but a different term, then the word "marriage".


    But there will always be people trying to chip away at the "different term" by drawing up exceptions.

    Look at the "equal but different" laws. Discrimination by any other name would smell as stinky.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  15. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    13,856
    Thanks
    3,380
    Thanked 1,282 Times in 1,154 Posts
    Groans
    1,258
    Groaned 699 Times in 637 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apple0154 View Post

    But there will always be people trying to chip away at the "different term" by drawing up exceptions.

    Look at the "equal but different" laws. Discrimination by any other name would smell as stinky.
    Licensing by its very nature is discriminatory. The state needs to discriminate between those who meet the qualifications and those who don't.

  16. #14 | Top
    WinterBorn Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damn Yankee View Post
    Statement of Fact


    Source



    Analysis and Position

    Like it or not this country was founded on religious principles. We claim inalienable rights given to us by our Creator. Then we secured the Blessings of liberty by forming a limited government to protect those rights.

    Legal marriage isn't a right; it is a privilege recognized by State governments through the licensing process because it is extremely helpful to society. Stable marriages produce fine children who form the next generation of leaders, therefore it stabilizes society. It's the same reason why we license doctors, plumbers, engineers and lawyers. If you are deemed qualified for a license then the state grants you the privilege.

    Homosexual relationships are inherently as well as statistically less stable and they can't naturally produce children. Some argue that licensing would add to the stability of these relationships and I recognize that. However marriage, unlike the professions, also has a religious component, so it doesn't make sense to defy the very basis of our national claim, that of inalienable rights, if we are at the same time defying our Creator.

    A reasonable and rational solution would be for States to provide a licensing venue for monogamous homosexual relationships, with the same privileges, but a different term, then the word "marriage".

    Adherence to the NOM pledge does nothing to prevent this. It merely provides a uniform standard for the definition of traditional marriage, thereby recognizing its importance to a stable society.
    " it is a privilege recognized by State governments through the licensing process because it is extremely helpful to society. Stable marriages produce fine children who form the next generation of leaders, therefore it stabilizes society." Gay marriages are no less helpful to society. The only thing a straight couple offers that a gay one does not is child bearing without outside assistance.

    "Homosexual relationships are inherently as well as statistically less stable and they can't naturally produce children." We have argued the statistics before, but where does the "Inherently" come from?

    " However marriage, unlike the professions, also has a religious component, so it doesn't make sense to defy the very basis of our national claim, that of inalienable rights, if we are at the same time defying our Creator."
    There is a religious component if the couple includes it. But that is completely outside the realm of the state's licencing. And how would we be defying our Creator?

  17. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,384
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damn Yankee View Post
    Licensing by its very nature is discriminatory. The state needs to discriminate between those who meet the qualifications and those who don't.
    So saying, "A reasonable and rational solution would be for States to provide a licensing venue for monogamous homosexual relationships, with the same privileges, but a different term, then the word "marriage", is neither reasonable nor rational because some people would always try to differentiate between them just as what happened to the "equal but different" laws. Been down that road before.

    Once again, to paraphrase Obama, "The Repubs/Conservatives always come up with old, tired, worn out ideas."
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

Similar Threads

  1. what is the anti-abortion position on IUDs
    By Don Quixote in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-30-2008, 02:39 AM
  2. My position on Iraq
    By Canceled in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 05-19-2008, 09:08 PM
  3. My position on fixing the healthcare system
    By The Knower of All Things in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-07-2007, 05:14 PM
  4. My position on illegal immigration
    By The Knower of All Things in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 07-01-2007, 09:02 PM
  5. The Democrats' Extremist Position on Iraq
    By Whitey in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-02-2006, 10:26 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •