Clint Eastwood on gay marriage

[Anonymous]

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/offbeat/clint-eastwood-shows-support-for-gay-marriage-ncxdc-091411

[Anonymous]

He should stop acting gay. Family employee benefits were created so that (traditionally) wives and children could be covered. Wives were unable to get their own health insurance because they were raising children. Religious and goverment support for marriage was also to protect the family structure.

Now, so many women have children out of wedlock and so many marriages end in divorce that the institution doesn't even seem meaningful any more. Hence the confusion over why gays should have the same protection.

For gays, it's mostly about money and forcing acceptance on an unwilling society.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:He should stop acting gay. Family employee benefits were created so that (traditionally) wives and children could be covered. Wives were unable to get their own health insurance because they were raising children. Religious and goverment support for marriage was also to protect the family structure.

Now, so many women have children out of wedlock and so many marriages end in divorce that the institution doesn't even seem meaningful any more. Hence the confusion over why gays should have the same protection.

For gays, it's mostly about money and forcing acceptance on an unwilling society.

Given what you say about marriage, it seems to me that legalizing gay marriage is the true defense of marriage.

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should stop acting gay. Family employee benefits were created so that (traditionally) wives and children could be covered. Wives were unable to get their own health insurance because they were raising children. Religious and goverment support for marriage was also to protect the family structure.

Now, so many women have children out of wedlock and so many marriages end in divorce that the institution doesn't even seem meaningful any more. Hence the confusion over why gays should have the same protection.

For gays, it's mostly about money and forcing acceptance on an unwilling society.

Given what you say about marriage, it seems to me that legalizing gay marriage is the true defense of marriage.

Your point went right past me, but if you think that it's all right for the government to endorse male on male sex then you must agree that it's all right for the government to outlaw it.

I left out how so many couples live together and don't get married. So many women, particularity those who are educated and work, go barren their entire lives. Alternatively, they'll have children and their partners still won't marry them. Many men are horrible in this regard. Getting sex out of these girls for years and having not intention of every marrying them.

Gay marriage is just an advanced stage of decay for an institution that is in decline.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Your point went right past me, but if you think that it's all right for the government to endorse male on male sex then you must agree that it's all right for the government to outlaw it.

In another thread, you suggested that the government has no right to regulate interstate commerce. Now, you seem to think the government has the right to regulate relationships. You prefer having the government in your bedroom, but not your business? What makes you think the government should be involved at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should stop acting gay. Family employee benefits were created so that (traditionally) wives and children could be covered. Wives were unable to get their own health insurance because they were raising children. Religious and goverment support for marriage was also to protect the family structure.

Now, so many women have children out of wedlock and so many marriages end in divorce that the institution doesn't even seem meaningful any more. Hence the confusion over why gays should have the same protection.

For gays, it's mostly about money and forcing acceptance on an unwilling society.

Given what you say about marriage, it seems to me that legalizing gay marriage is the true defense of marriage.

Your point went right past me, but if you think that it's all right for the government to endorse male on male sex then you must agree that it's all right for the government to outlaw it.

I left out how so many couples live together and don't get married. So many women, particularity those who are educated and work, go barren their entire lives. Alternatively, they'll have children and their partners still won't marry them. Many men are horrible in this regard. Getting sex out of these girls for years and having not intention of every marrying them.

Gay marriage is just an advanced stage of decay for an institution that is in decline.

Gee, I didn't know that the government was in the business of endorsing individual activity. By your logic, we should ban sex out of wedlock because otherwise we endorse it.

Legalizing gay marriage is nothing more than extending legal rights to cover all people. It is not an endorsement of anything. Personally I do not endorse you procreating. Neither does the government, but don't take offense. Your constitution gives you the right. And the same is true of gay marriage. It will happen, just like the Supreme Court struck down laws against gay sex.

[Anonymous]

Gay "marriage" is about controlling culture through language. Supporters don't just want the legal rights through civil unions and the like; they want to control (and alter) the meaning of the word itself.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:if you think that it's all right for the government to endorse male on male sex then you must agree that it's all right for the government to outlaw it.

If you think it's OK for the government to endorse hetero relationships, you must agree that it's all right for the government to outlaw it.

If you think it's OK for the government to endorse health insurance, you must agree that it's all right for the government to outlaw it.

If you think it's OK for the government to outlaw murder, you must agree that it's all right for the government to endorse it.

Anonymous wrote:I left out how so many couples live together and don't get married. So many women, particularity those who are educated and work, go barren their entire lives. Alternatively, they'll have children and their partners still won't marry them. Many men are horrible in this regard. Getting sex out of these girls for years and having not intention of every marrying them.

WTF does that have to do with anything.

The easy answer to this issue is to have a governmentally recognized legal relationship that has absolutely nothing to do with romance, sex, etc., in lieu of any kind of marriage. You can then form that relationship with anyone you like - opposite-sex lover, same-sex lover, best buddy, sibling, child. Then if you want to have a "marriage" as well, that's exclusively between you and your church or whatever.

Suggest that to someone and you see where they really stand on this issue.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your point went right past me, but if you think that it's all right for the government to endorse male on male sex then you must agree that it's all right for the government to outlaw it.

In another thread, you suggested that the government has no right to regulate interstate commerce. Now, you seem to think the government has the right to regulate relationships. You prefer having the government in your bedroom, but not your business? What makes you think the government should be involved at all?

You're confusing me with Thomas Jefferson (blush). I was just pointing out that liberals of his time would now be ultraconservative. I do believe that the federal government should regulate interstate commerce.

My opinion is that the government should let people do what they want in their own bedroom. This used to be the argument by many in the gay community. Now they want government endorsement. I say that it cuts both ways if that's what they want. If anyone is interested in my actual opinion, I put homosexuality in with wife swapping, BDSM, etc. Sex is a weird thing, and life is short. If that's what people are into, I'm not going to judge, but the government really shouldn't codify support for these things.

Procreation is quite different. You have young individuals who cannot make decisions for themselves and need a safe environment to grow up in. Procreation is an activity that involves more than just the adults involved. For most of human history, when a man and a woman got together, the woman got pregnant and was that way a good deal of the time. Marriage protects women and children but also promotes a structure that is health for society. Any society should have a great interest on protecting the family, because it's the basic unit of that society. This has nothing to do with odd sexual preferences.

BTW, I hope you surmised the connection between my posts through the time and didn't ID me and then call me out using my IP address. There are a lot of implications for that i.e. privacy. I don't want to be "outed." : )

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you think that it's all right for the government to endorse male on male sex then you must agree that it's all right for the government to outlaw it.

If you think it's OK for the government to endorse hetero relationships, you must agree that it's all right for the government to outlaw it.

If you think it's OK for the government to endorse health insurance, you must agree that it's all right for the government to outlaw it.

If you think it's OK for the government to outlaw murder, you must agree that it's all right for the government to endorse it.

Anonymous wrote:I left out how so many couples live together and don't get married. So many women, particularity those who are educated and work, go barren their entire lives. Alternatively, they'll have children and their partners still won't marry them. Many men are horrible in this regard. Getting sex out of these girls for years and having not intention of every marrying them.

WTF does that have to do with anything.

The easy answer to this issue is to have a governmentally recognized legal relationship that has absolutely nothing to do with romance, sex, etc., in lieu of any kind of marriage. You can then form that relationship with anyone you like - opposite-sex lover, same-sex lover, best buddy, sibling, child. Then if you want to have a "marriage" as well, that's exclusively between you and your church or whatever.

Suggest that to someone and you see where they really stand on this issue.

My point was that marriage has become so messed up that people don't even know why it is important.

To answer your question, "yes." Once the government has the power to regulate a certain area, they can regulate it however they want. For example, zoning did not exist until about the 1920's. People could build houses, businesses, etc. wherever they wanted. After a Supreme Court decision, they could suddenly regulate it. Now, if you want to keep poor people out of a certain area, you can. If you want to force them into a neighborhood, you can also do that. It's how it works. . Many states used to outlaw homosexual activity, so it has been done before.

Gay activists don't want to be left alone, they want to be in your face.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:...but if you think that it's all right for the government to endorse male on male sex then you must agree that it's all right for the government to outlaw it...

So if government can make murder illegal, it's all right for them to make it legal?

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...but if you think that it's all right for the government to endorse male on male sex then you must agree that it's all right for the government to outlaw it...

So if government can make murder illegal, it's all right for them to make it legal?

Government is probably better at killing people than any other function that it performs.

It's called capital punishment, justifiable homicide (also done by individuals), collateral damage by the military, "woops" when it's done by Fairfax County Police, abortion (I know it's a controversy; not getting into that). What about the killing of Osama Bin Laden or the planned attempt to ram a Sept 11 jet filled with passengers? Sure, it's not called murder when the government approves it. I'm pretty sure that people used to be allowed to kill slaves. I've heard that you can be shot just for setting foot on Aberdeen Proving Grounds regardless of the reason. You can be shot for looting.

Yes, killing falls under the government's power to perform and to legislate, and it truly shines in that regard. Heck, contracting for killing machines is the number one engine of our economy in this region.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Procreation is quite different. You have young individuals who cannot make decisions for themselves and need a safe environment to grow up in. Procreation is an activity that involves more than just the adults involved. For most of human history, when a man and a woman got together, the woman got pregnant and was that way a good deal of the time. Marriage protects women and children but also promotes a structure that is health for society. Any society should have a great interest on protecting the family, because it's the basic unit of that society. This has nothing to do with odd sexual preferences.

Marriage protects women and children? Tell that to battered women and abused children. Tell that to the originators of the phrase "rule of thumb" which comes from the English common law rule that a man could beat his wife with a stick no wider than the size of his thumb. Marriage has--until very recently and even this only in certain parts of the world--always been nothing more than a way to form alliances between tribes and to assure an orderly transfer of property (usually to the firstborn, never mind the other surviving children or those who were victims of infanticide).
What actually protects women and children are the laws that assert their rights as far as custody and financial support are concerned as a result of divorce or laws that allow abused children to be taken away from their parents. So much for marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Procreation is quite different. You have young individuals who cannot make decisions for themselves and need a safe environment to grow up in. Procreation is an activity that involves more than just the adults involved. For most of human history, when a man and a woman got together, the woman got pregnant and was that way a good deal of the time. Marriage protects women and children but also promotes a structure that is health for society. Any society should have a great interest on protecting the family, because it's the basic unit of that society. This has nothing to do with odd sexual preferences.

Marriage protects women and children? Tell that to battered women and abused children. Tell that to the originators of the phrase "rule of thumb" which comes from the English common law rule that a man could beat his wife with a stick no wider than the size of his thumb. Marriage has--until very recently and even this only in certain parts of the world--always been nothing more than a way to form alliances between tribes and to assure an orderly transfer of property (usually to the firstborn, never mind the other surviving children or those who were victims of infanticide).
What actually protects women and children are the laws that assert their rights as far as custody and financial support are concerned as a result of divorce or laws that allow abused children to be taken away from their parents. So much for marriage.

Women aren't property in this county, and most men (and women) don't beat their spouses. I'm sorry if this has been the case for you. A married two-parent family provides a loving environment that can't be replicated anywhere else.

Go to SE DC is you want to see the effects of fatherless families. No dads beating them there. The kids have to join gangs to get the structure that they can't get at home. These kids never have a change to get anywhere in life. The term bastard comes from the behavior exhibited by fatherless children. Divorce laws? That's doing something after a great tragedy (for the children for sure). You must have a very tough life.

If you think that marriage is bad and that it's all about beating and oppressing women, I hope you stay gay and don't have kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Procreation is quite different. You have young individuals who cannot make decisions for themselves and need a safe environment to grow up in. Procreation is an activity that involves more than just the adults involved. For most of human history, when a man and a woman got together, the woman got pregnant and was that way a good deal of the time. Marriage protects women and children but also promotes a structure that is health for society. Any society should have a great interest on protecting the family, because it's the basic unit of that society. This has nothing to do with odd sexual preferences.

Marriage protects women and children? Tell that to battered women and abused children. Tell that to the originators of the phrase "rule of thumb" which comes from the English common law rule that a man could beat his wife with a stick no wider than the size of his thumb. Marriage has--until very recently and even this only in certain parts of the world--always been nothing more than a way to form alliances between tribes and to assure an orderly transfer of property (usually to the firstborn, never mind the other surviving children or those who were victims of infanticide).
What actually protects women and children are the laws that assert their rights as far as custody and financial support are concerned as a result of divorce or laws that allow abused children to be taken away from their parents. So much for marriage.

Women aren't property in this county, and most men (and women) don't beat their spouses. I'm sorry if this has been the case for you. A married two-parent family provides a loving environment that can't be replicated anywhere else.

Go to SE DC is you want to see the effects of fatherless families. No dads beating them there. The kids have to join gangs to get the structure that they can't get at home. These kids never have a change to get anywhere in life. The term bastard comes from the behavior exhibited by fatherless children. Divorce laws? That's doing something after a great tragedy (for the children for sure). You must have a very tough life.

If you think that marriage is bad and that it's all about beating and oppressing women, I hope you stay gay and don't have kids.

NP. It seems to me that you should be an advocate for gay marriage. Apparently single parent families are detrimental to children. So be consistent.