Showing 5 comments for
Perhaps Gay Marriage Is an Economic Issue, Mr. Barron

Sorry dude. Total barf.

DEAR MR. TERPSTRA:Two questions.1: How is allowing Gay couples to marry going to harm the marriages of Straight couples?2: What Constitutional argument can you offer for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted?Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since (1) couples do not have to marry to have children, and (2) the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license. Religious beliefs are irrelevant to this debate, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want. The quest for marriage equality by Gay couples has absolutely nothing to do with Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples. Nothing is changing for them. Nothing is happening to “traditional marriage.” Most people are Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change by allowing Gay couples to do the same. This is really not any sort of a “sea change” for marriage, since the only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the gender of the two persons in the relationship.

To Chuck (great name by the way):1: “How is allowing Gay couples to marry going to harm the marriages of Straight couples?”It isn’t just about straight couples. Still, “gay marriage” (an Orwellian term adopted by socialists) harms taxpaying straight couples because fatherlessness harms taxpayers, period. We don’t create low-tax societies by creating more fatherless communities. Read Guilty by Ann Coulter. It’s no coincidence that socialist Europeans were the first to embrace “gay marriage.” There’s also a reason why the West’s jails are filled with fatherless young men. Moreover, it hurts gay couples opposed to "gay marriage" because they pay taxes too. 2: “What Constitutional argument can you offer for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted?”I just jumped in my time machine to ask the Founding Fathers - but they laughed in my face. In any case, why do Gay Elites (and their enablers) tell marketers they belong to a rich demographic and a huge market, while crying poor in public when the marriage issue is raised. And speaking of which, what Constitutional argument can elites offer me for silencing American Christians? In any case, the above question is based on a myth. I’ll let Adam Kolasinski explain: “Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.” In other words….more pressures on taxpayers.

When will good-hearted and well-intentioned conservatives stop trying to use government to confirm their social ideas? Allowing gays to marry violates no one's rights. This is why I left the Republican party. On principle, they are no different from Democrats. Democrats want to push their agendas upon everyone else using government to nudge others and provide incentives for what they think is good. Republicans do the same thing in principle when they want to keep marriage defined as it is with favors coming from government to incentivise people to have strong families.Can I opt out of having my tax money confiscated to go towards married people? Where in Constitution does government get this authority? Even if it is for society's own good? Why did the Founding Fathers not define marriage and give favors to those that married? Were they missing something?No, the Founding Fathers knew that government had NO place in marriage. It is a shame we have changed that.Now marriage is a political weapon and no one will end up winning this debate until we get government OUT of defining, regulating, and giving favors for marriage.I understand it is hard for some social conservatives to see their inconsistency dispassionately, but it is a must if they want to be true to their principles.No one is saying it is bad to encourage marriage and that marriage does do good for society. But no where does government have legitimate authority to enforce good things upon society. That is the price of living in freedom.

Wow. This article is strictly opinions, as i was looking for facts. I disagreed with most of it and you seem like a pretty heartless person. You know what would be funny? If your mother had an abortion. FETUSES ARE PEOPLE TOO!