Liberal Christians

Tetra

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2016
1,223
708
41
Earth
✟64,448.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually if you followed the news for the last few decades, you might see that is it the liberal and homosexual activists who have and have been achieving the goal of interfering with other peoples lives. One can hardly give any conservative opinion without being censored as racist, homophobic, xenophobic etc. and face economic sanctions for even making a donation for traditional family values, or refuse to make a work of art for perversion.

And its even worse in today's censorious walk-on-eggshells universities, the microcosm of the liberal's brave (snowflake) new world. Talk about fundamentally being anti-liberty.

In addition to having hire according to imposed ethnic quotas versus simply the best candidate, and increasingly excessive regulations (in some places you cannot even collect rainwater from the sky above your house!).

As for men, what comparable decrease in liberty would I be for that is not traditional and Biblical? Lets see what pigeon hole you want can put me in to demonstrate the liberal you are for.
Ummm, I think you're confusing "liberal" with "leftist". You seem to be more anti-leftist... and yes, you are anti-liberty. Just because leftists are also anti-liberty, doesn't mean you're not. Liberty would be, that I can do as I wish so long as I don't interfere with others doing as they wish. You're in opposition to this... you desire others to be made to adhere to the moral code with which you espouse.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,475
18,455
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,426.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Actually if you followed the news for the last few decades, you might see that is it the liberal and homosexual activists who have and have been achieving the goal of interfering with other peoples lives.

Most gay activists seem like they just want to protect gay peoples rights. There are activist groups that do want to actively change churches attitudes, but most gays "get the picture", which is why half of all gays and lesbians are non-Christians. I think that's sort of sad, but most gays are not interested in changing religious peoples attitudes. They are more interested in ignoring you altogether and getting on with their lives.

"Traditional family values" is an out-of-date dog-whistle. "Traditional families" now days are increasingly gay-friendly. I went to a lesbian wedding years ago where everybody had an Alabama accent as thick as molasses on a cold winter day. It was a bit surreal, even for me who fancied himself being open-minded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DZoolander
Upvote 0

DZoolander

Persnickety Member
Apr 24, 2007
7,279
2,128
Far far away
✟112,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Most gay activists seem like they just want to protect gay peoples rights. There are activist groups that do want to actively change churches attitudes, but most gays "get the picture", which is why half of all gays and lesbians are non-Christians. I think that's sort of sad, but most gays are not interested in changing religious peoples attitudes. They are more interested in ignoring you altogether and getting on with their lives.

That's my experience as well. Most gay people I know realize that they're persona-non-grata as far as Christians go, and that they are viewed as the worst of the worst...the penultimate sinners...the yardstick by which all other sinners are measured...the most irredeemable...etc...lol And as such, they want nothing to do with Christians. They only get involved to the extent of "Hey, don't tell me that as a taxpayer I can't go to a courthouse and get the label of marriage", etc.
 
Upvote 0

Tetra

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2016
1,223
708
41
Earth
✟64,448.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's my experience as well. Most gay people I know realize that they're persona-non-grata as far as Christians go, and that they are viewed as the worst of the worst...the penultimate sinners...the most irredeemable...etc...lol And as such, they want nothing to do with Christians. They only get involved to the extent of "Hey, don't tell me that as a taxpayer I can't go to a courthouse and get the label of marriage", etc.
I feel the state has no business in marriage to begin with. Keeping the state out of marriage would fix so much imo.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

Tetra

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2016
1,223
708
41
Earth
✟64,448.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, but as it stands, the state is intensely involved in marriage by offering all sorts of legal rights and benefits to it.
Yeah.. and all that crap needs to go. lol The government can't do anything right, we all know this to be true. :)

@PeaceByJesus I think this is the distinction you're confusing.
 
Upvote 0

DZoolander

Persnickety Member
Apr 24, 2007
7,279
2,128
Far far away
✟112,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Yeah.. and all that crap needs to go. lol The government can't do anything right, we all know this to be true. :)

lol - I dunno. I like the fact that as a married person, if something were to happen to me, that all of the possessions my wife and I have automatically are hers.

I also think that government dysfunction is complicated, and mostly (lately) a consequence of this bizarre hyper partisan garbage going on. People support things not because it actually makes any sense - but simply to thumb their nose at the other guy. I mean look at this tax bill that just got passed.

People spend a year and a half chanting "drain the swamp", but then support the swampiest thing that's ever been put forth...lol Why? Because they want to troll the other side.

It's a shame that's what we've been reduced to...and it ain't gonna end anywhere good.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,475
18,455
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,426.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
That's my experience as well. Most gay people I know realize that they're persona-non-grata as far as Christians go, and that they are viewed as the worst of the worst...the penultimate sinners...the yardstick by which all other sinners are measured...the most irredeemable...etc...lol And as such, they want nothing to do with Christians. They only get involved to the extent of "Hey, don't tell me that as a taxpayer I can't go to a courthouse and get the label of marriage", etc.

We are not the most "affirming" of Lutheran congregations in the ELCA (I doubt we're having any gay weddings any time soon), but we are good Lutherans at least and realize everybody is a sinner and everybody is welcome, without trying to make your life miserable in the process. We are only a bit beyond "don't ask, don't tell". Up until recently in Orlando there were only a few churches that could even come to that point (and of course the usual Metropolitan Community Church). Which is ironic because Orlando has one of the larger gay populations in the country. Gays just aren't churchgoers in large numbers (no surprise), though some do have a private belief in God, which I think is a miracle in itself.

I guess that shows that it's more an organic development to have gay acceptance, than some kind of radical activism happening. Churches are not capitulating to the culture, even mainline, liberal ones. If anything, they are lagging behind the culture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
While I do agree that people go overboard with the whole "racist" thing - and that's something I have a bone to pick with as well - I'm curious as to what interference you think "the homosexuals" have made in other people's lives?

The only argument I can think of is that it's no longer kosher to hire or fire people based upon their sexual orientation. Is that the "limitation" you're speaking of? Do you miss the old days where you could fire someone once ya found out they were gay?
Everything we do or do not do affects others, directly or indirectly, immediately and or in the future, in majors ways or those of little significance.

With homosexual relations, the question is how can it not negatively effect the lives of other people? We can start with the most obvious. What do think the reaction would be if a class of people engaging in a consensual religious practice - lets says the Lord's supper - was shown to be responsible for 82% of new HIV cases among men (despite only representing approximately 4% of the male population), and a greatly increased incidence of other infectious diseases and premature death, and despite decades of attempting to tame it into being "safe"?

In addition to which is the financial cost which has been going for decades: "The estimated discounted lifetime cost for persons who become HIV infected at age 35 is $326,500 (60% for antiretroviral medications, 15% for other medications, 25% non-drug costs). [Undiscounted "mean lifetime costs are $597,300 ($4,200)" "Discounted costs are highlighted throughout because they represent economic costs that take into account time preferences of individuals and society and the opportunity cost of funds"] The Lifetime Medical Cost Savings from Preventing HIV in the United States

And the cost of that either raises private insurance rates or taxes. Then there is the increasing if slow problem excreted drugs in the water supply (though being from more than just gays).

Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended prescribing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in high-risk populations, a potentially highly effective but costly prevention intervention, which helps allow this fornication without getting HIV. For now, which saves lives though a promiscuous lifestyle itself by with straights or gays is detrimental to self and society.

Now if a Christian religious practice had these effects (which some militant atheists almost treat it as having) then i do not think i need to tell you what the overall reaction would be.

Then there is proven benefit of marriage btwn make and female, And monogamous marriage btwn gays is not the norm chosen/practiced, while it is not what God ordained, and i am sure claims that this homosexual marriage is fine will be shown to have been so much whistling in the dark.
While I do agree that college kids need some toughening up when it comes to hearing other people's points of view and get "triggered" too easily...conservatives have quite a few snowflakes in their midst as well..lol I don't see liberals smashing their coffee machines because the company decided to stop advertising on a show that was defending a pedophile. lol Or having hissy fits over sports people expressing a political opinion...etc.
Nonsense. Their is reaction, but nothing in eal comparison to the widespread Occupy movement and antifa movement and widespread demon-strations on campus when a conservative speaker shows up, or is scheduled to. Let alone the overwhelming liberal media help.
We're at this weird juncture where nobody can seem to stand to hear an alternative point of view without getting all triggery and over-reacting...wanting to throw out labels at each other...etc. And that's on both sides
.
Then the thread gets nuked, likely by a liberal.
Meh, I have mixed feelings on the affirmative action stuff and can see both sides of the argument. As for regulations, some are good, some are nonsensical (like the rainwater thing). Instead of railing against regulations, which I see as lazy, I think it's prudent to look at them on a case by case basis.
There are too many, by too many not having to deal with the street-level world.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,475
18,455
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,426.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
PbJ, I hope you do come to realize those arguments are inherently tired and lame. The issue being debated is mostly about people that want to get married and lead relatively invisible vanilla lives. Not people that hookup on Grindr with people they barely know so they can have meaningless sex. Few people, gay or straight, consider that a great way to live.

Have you stopped to consider one of the reasons that so many gay men get AIDS is because they have been shunned by society and ostractized from community institutions? If you've been told you are dirty, filthy, and perverted often enough, you start to believe it. People that have little to live for but pleasure do engage in riskier behaviors that put them at risk of HIV. Self-hatred does horrible stuff.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Ummm, I think you're confusing "liberal" with "leftist".
Not confusing from what I see.
You seem to be more anti-leftist... and yes, you are anti-liberty. Just because leftists are also anti-liberty, doesn't mean you're not.
I see, but you are not, yet the term can be applied to both. The issue is which is right. I intend to stand on the Biblical side, versus the already deleterious imposed social engineering of the Left.
Liberty would be, that I can do as I wish so long as I don't interfere with others doing as they wish.
Do you realize how superficial that position is? You can no more no effect others by your choices, words, actions or silence and inaction, than you can throw a stone into a pond and not effect waves.

The issue is to what degree and manner of effect.
You're in opposition to this... you desire others to be made to adhere to the moral code with which you espouse.
Which is actually duplicity, for by condemning what others believe in then you show desire that others to be made to adhere to the moral code with which you espouse.

Tell me how bad the world would be if everyone obeyed the Lord Jesus according to His word, in context etc., versus the socialist morally liberal paradise the Left has pushed for too long. And don't even try to equate the two unless you want the sophistry exposed.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Most gay activists seem like they just want to protect gay peoples rights. There are activist groups that do want to actively change churches attitudes, but most gays "get the picture", which is why half of all gays and lesbians are non-Christians. I think that's sort of sad, but most gays are not interested in changing religious peoples attitudes. They are more interested in ignoring you altogether and getting on with their lives..
That is not what i see by their actitivists. A few years ago a moderate church in the city simply had a meeting with some people from (what was then (Exodus international) and the activists came out in force, even to placing a bull horn against the window, while the police did nothing. And this abounds.

Then you have the media engaging in their psychological tactics, to the point of labeling anyone who opposes it as "homophobia," a loaded psychological term designed to intimidate one into silence by inferring an irrational fear of them or of being one. If they really believed this was true as applied, then it would testify to them having a neurosis.

The playbook of Harvard-trained (homosexual) psychologists Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen in "After the Ball, " has been followed well:

"In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. The purpose of victim imagery is to make straight people feel very uncomfortable."

"Jamming" homo-hatred (disagreement with homosexual behaviors) was to be done by linking it to Nazi horror, advised Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."
"Traditional family values" is an out-of-date dog-whistle. "Traditional families" now days are increasingly gay-friendly. I went to a lesbian wedding years ago where everybody had an Alabama accent as thick as molasses on a cold winter day. It was a bit surreal, even for me who fancied himself being open-minded.
Yes, its part of the evolving alternative universe which the devil seeks to gain glory by, creating perverse imitations of what God ordained.[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

Tetra

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2016
1,223
708
41
Earth
✟64,448.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not confusing from what I see.

I see, but you are not, yet the term can be applied to both. The issue is which is right. I intend to stand on the Biblical side, versus the already deleterious imposed social engineering of the Left.

Do you realize how superficial that position is? You can no more no effect others by your choices, words, actions or silence and inaction, than you can throw a stone into a pond and not effect waves.

The issue is to what degree and manner of effect.

Which is actually duplicity, for by condemning what others believe in then you show desire that others to be made to adhere to the moral code with which you espouse.

Tell me how bad the world would be if everyone obeyed the Lord Jesus according to His word, in context etc., versus the socialist morally liberal paradise the Left has pushed for too long. And don't even try to equate the two unless you want the sophistry exposed.
If everyone chose to follow God, the world would be great. That's different than forcing others through governmental policy to adhere to what you think the Bible says.
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If everyone chose to follow God, the world would be great. That's different than forcing others through governmental policy to adhere to what you think the Bible says.

If we don't enforce the social welfare state (the impulse to take care of the poor, sick, orphan and old is Christian) through taxation, people will not voluntarily give enough to prevent starvation and utter penury at the bottom. We know this from all of the thousands of years of history everywhere in the world BEFORE the social welfare state.

So, while it would be grand if everybody gave enough of their own free will, they do not, they never have, and they never will.

Our choices, really, are to leave everybody free to do as he pleases - and accept the desperation, lack of medical care, starvation - and periodic violent revolutions - from the bottom, or to use the power of government to take about a third of income from everybody so that nobody starves or dies in the streets or for want of medicine, we don't have revolutions, and all we have to do is listen to people in general whine about their taxes, and Christians in particular whine about their freewill being violated through mandatory charity.

It is true: everybody's free will IS being violated, to an extent, in order to feed everybody. Christianity had 1600 years as the official, established religion everywhere, and nowhere did Christians ever voluntarily give enough to stop the hunger and stop the penury.

The mandatory, involuntary, enforced-by-the-gun social welfare state has done a much, much better job educating everybody, feeding everybody (including foreigners in crisis), establishing universal health clinics (they're not great, but they get the job done), social security to provide income to all of the old, disability insurance.

The social welfare state is imperfect, but it is two orders of magnitude superior to anything the Christians ever cobbled together on their own. Voluntary Christianity failed its mission, and so the government had to take over and add compulsion to accomplish that which Christians SHOULD HAVE, but NEVER DID, on their own. Christianity in ideal is wonderful. In practice if falls far, far short of what it should do. And when it comes to charity, that means high death rates, sickness and utter destitution for lots of people. It also means those secret graveyards and mass rapes in the old orphanages and poorhouses, where unsupervised Christians abused their charges.

Christianity failed in this duty, so the democratic state stepped up, largely took it over, and compels its people, including Christians, to provide what is NEEDED to meet the minimum requirements of the poor, not merely what people gave out of the goodness of their hearts.

People always did give out of their good hearts, but it was never enough.

To many Christians that is good enough. They don't want the mandatory charity of the state. They want to be left with more of their money, so THEY can choose what and whom to give to.

No.

No, that does not work.

All history in all Christian countries shows that Christians never give enough to address the problem.
Addressing the problem is more important than Christian liberty. Christian liberty makes you feel good about giving, while people literally stay illiterate and starve. Not good enough, not sufficient.

Social welfare has been the solution. We tried relying on Christian welfare and generosity for a millennium and a half. It was never enough. Also, not everybody is a Christian. There is no reason to let the atheist escape also having to pay a third of his income to keep his fellow countrymen alive.

People don't like it? So what? Obey, pay, or rot in prison. It isn't voluntary because people never will voluntarily give enough. So they have to be coerced by force - or we can let the poor die in larger numbers and have periodic bloody revolutions as of old.

I do understand that people don't want to pay taxes that high, that they feel that it is violative of their consciences, that it's not "Christian charity". I hear it and I feel for them. My taxes are also too high and I don't like it either.

Nevertheless I, and everybody else, have to be coerced to give more than we want to as taxes, so that everybody can live, and read, and the sick be cared for, and the old poor not all thrown back on the resources of their children (if they have any). That's the way it is, it isn't going to change because it CAN'T change unless we're willing to tolerate massive suffering, and in the end responsible Christian people know that. So we voted, as a people, to have a social welfare state. This was Christian, it was the right thing to do. Those who think otherwise can whine and moan and point to passages in their book, but they will be ignored, by everybody, including the rest of us Christians, because they're wrong.

For all the protests, we know, in our hearts, that their motivation is always narrow-minded greedy self-interest, so we discard all of the "Christian" arguments against social welfare as exactly what they are: dishonest, untrue, and pointless. They're never going to get anywhere and make themselves out to be immoral by making the arguments. The best answer is to man up, shut up, pay the taxes, and be grateful you live in a Christian country where enough people understand that we all have to be coerced to pay more than we would ever give voluntarily, so that we all have that safety net if life throws us off the horse.

That's just the truth. It's unfortunate that it has to be said, but apparently it does.

It's like young people whining about Social Security. No, you will not be able to save up more yourself to cover you in all the ways that Social Security does. The young all think they are much smarter than they are. They all think they can do better. They're all wrong. Perhaps we remember making those arguments ourselves. As we get older and realize how aleatory life really is, how we're not in charge, and how difficult it is to keep things together for the long haul, those of us with any wisdom come to thank our lucky stars that society ignores the opinions of greedy young people in their ignorance. If we did end Social Security, 90% of the old would end up dependent on welfare. If we did away with welfare also, they would end up dependent on their children. And millions of them would starve.

No, we're not going back to that. Yes, we will have redistributive social welfare and the taxation that goes with it. Yes, it is Christian. No, the Churches cannot, and will not cover the gap: they never did before, and the society is much less Christian than it used to be. Yes, we've all heard the whingeing and moralizing. No, we don't listen to a word of it. Yes, when YOU whinge and moralize about social welfare and taxes, you sound unchristian, uncharitable and foolish, because you are. Suck it up, be quiet, and pull at the oars with everybody else. Social welfare is part of the burden of Adam. And yes, it's Christian.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PloverWing
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DZoolander

Persnickety Member
Apr 24, 2007
7,279
2,128
Far far away
✟112,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
an accused phoebephile - he's only been accused, not convicted.

True - lol - but I figure with the number of people that believe sincerely stuff like Obama was born in Kenya and that Hillary ran a child sex ring out of the basement of a pizza joint - the courtesy of attaching "alleged" (considering the comparative weight of the allegations) is not one I feel like granting. :)
 
Upvote 0

DZoolander

Persnickety Member
Apr 24, 2007
7,279
2,128
Far far away
✟112,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
WHAT? How DARE you! That's...that's...RACIST!!!

My favorite is how everything is labeled "phobic".

Like, I think trans people are pretty wacky. That doesn't make me phobic of them.
 
Upvote 0

DZoolander

Persnickety Member
Apr 24, 2007
7,279
2,128
Far far away
✟112,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Everything we do or do not do affects others, directly or indirectly, immediately and or in the future, in majors ways or those of little significance.

With homosexual relations, the question is how can it not negatively effect the lives of other people? We can start with the most obvious. What do think the reaction would be if a class of people engaging in a consensual religious practice - lets says the Lord's supper - was shown to be responsible for 82% of new HIV cases among men (despite only representing approximately 4% of the male population), and a greatly increased incidence of other infectious diseases and premature death, and despite decades of attempting to tame it into being "safe"?

In addition to which is the financial cost which has been going for decades: "The estimated discounted lifetime cost for persons who become HIV infected at age 35 is $326,500 (60% for antiretroviral medications, 15% for other medications, 25% non-drug costs). [Undiscounted "mean lifetime costs are $597,300 ($4,200)" "Discounted costs are highlighted throughout because they represent economic costs that take into account time preferences of individuals and society and the opportunity cost of funds"] The Lifetime Medical Cost Savings from Preventing HIV in the United States

And the cost of that either raises private insurance rates or taxes. Then there is the increasing if slow problem excreted drugs in the water supply (though being from more than just gays).

Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended prescribing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in high-risk populations, a potentially highly effective but costly prevention intervention, which helps allow this fornication without getting HIV. For now, which saves lives though a promiscuous lifestyle itself by with straights or gays is detrimental to self and society.

Now if a Christian religious practice had these effects (which some militant atheists almost treat it as having) then i do not think i need to tell you what the overall reaction would be.

Then there is proven benefit of marriage btwn make and female, And monogamous marriage btwn gays is not the norm chosen/practiced, while it is not what God ordained, and i am sure claims that this homosexual marriage is fine will be shown to have been so much whistling in the dark.

Out of curiosity, do you have the same types of feelings about the costs incurred on society by fat people?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I feel the state has no business in marriage to begin with. Keeping the state out of marriage would fix so much imo.

Think it through. Everybody would be taxed as individuals. (People's taxes would go up.)

There would be no Social Security survivor benefits after a lifetime of cohabitation (millions of women would be plunged into poverty).

Health insurance that covers families would evaporate. It would only be working parent and child.

Unless there's a written will, inheritances would go to children, then to parents, or the state. The boyfriend/girlfriend never takes anything - that was the property-and-rights basis for the gay marriage argument.

Essentially, wives would be in the same position as polygamous second wives are: no rights whatever.

There would be no alimony - that is assigned by and enforced by the state.

Consider buying a house or car or opening a bank account or credit card, or a family business. These would be legally the same thing as as doing that with a friend. People and their friends do buy houses, open accounts, do business, but the paperwork required to protect themselves - and to be accepted by the counterparties - is much more burdensome. (Wealthier spouses' wives or husbands get the benefit of their wealthier spouse's status. Boyfriends and girlfriends do not.)

Parents or adult children would decide on funeral arrangements. Spouses, being legally unrelated, would have no status. This is also true in health care decisions. Unless somebody had the presence of mind, and the resources, to make a proper will, spouses would have the same legal rights to decisions, property, children, etc., as girlfriends - which is to say, none.

Marriage is as old as written history, everywhere in the world. And we found it in the tribes we encountered that had no written history. It's natural to mankind and extraordinarily convenient. It's assumed, and written into the warp and woof of our law. To take state recognition and allowance for marriage out of the picture would result in an absolute train wreck for property rights, normal successions, support, responsibilities, etc., and a huge windfall for lawyers as everybody had to rush to write out wills and legal contracts to replace what was there natively and normally through marriage - and more money for lawyers to litigate out those cases where people had neither the resources to get to contracts in place, or the time to do it before something like death or disaster hit them.

And why, exactly, would we be inflicting calamity and chaos on 99% of the population? So that a weird 1% would not be "burdened".

No King in his right mind would ever even try to do that, nor any dictator: they would be overthrown by a wrathful people. Even Kim Jong Un would be killed by his generals if he were to try to overthrow the normal structure of family under the law.

Fortunately, we don't live under Kings or a dictator. We live in a democracy, where we get to vote what the law is. And we vote that marriage stays put. We can TOLERATE gays being extended that right, but that's it. No, we're not going to wreak havoc in our lives and turn everything into mud in order to satisfy the theoretical cravings of a strange 1%. We're going to discriminate against them for our own convenience, and nobody has the power to stop us - but if the weirdos keep on provoking us we DO have the power to revoke our tolerance and go back to oppressing them. And we're getting closer and closer to the point where we're going to have had enough and do precisely that, through the democracy.

So, gays: you got your rights. Now shut up. We're not giving you any more. We're not ripping up the whole society to accomodate your weird proclivities. Yes, homosexuality IS abnormal, and weird - and since this a Christian forum - very clearly sinful. No, most of us don't care enough about what you do to oppress you. Yes, we will react and oppress you if you keep pushing us, because no, we are not going to inconvenience ourselves and throw our own perfectly normal lives, with state-structured marriage and all of its rights, into confusion because it doesn't "work" exactly right for you. It doesn't work right for you because you're weird, abnormal, and it wasn't designed for you. Yeah, we'll accomodate you - we already have. But end marriage? No. That's insane. We'd rather put you back in the closet and oppress you than have upheaval in our lives because your weirdness cannot be comfortably squared with the world as it is.

In other words: marriage stays put as a function of the state, and if that inconveniences people, they'll just have to go suck eggs. We've gone as far as we're going to go. No further. Push, and you'll get a backlash and lose some of the tolerance and equality you already have gained.

Want to fight instead? (And O, how they do!) Well, then, have a heapin' helpin' o' Donald Trump, with a Roy Moore chaser and more to follow. Turn it into a power game, and numbers win.

Keep it reasonable. Leaving gays alone and letting them have protective contracts so they can transfer property and rights to their boyfriends or girlfriends? Fine. Call it marriage? Not great, but tolerable. Rip up marriage and inconvenience us all? Never.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0