Americans increasingly in favor of gay marriage, gun rights

WalkingWolf said:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

You seem to have missed the bold part of the First Admendment...

Click to expand...

+ 1

Ca Patriot said:

i dont think that piece is entirely accurate.

i do believe that more americans support the right to gay marriage than any time in american history. however, when states vote on the issue either through legislatures or initiatives the vast majority are against same sex marriage.

personally i am not in favor of gay marriage but i am opposed to government involvement in marriage.

Click to expand...

+1

osmanobma said:

i want to start my post by saying i want government out of the marriage business.

now, i am also against gay marriage, its wrong, its immoral and just plane weird.

but if the pro-gay marriage crowd what to be consistant and have a shred of credibility in their argument, they have to be for

polygamy and incest marriage. if you have the "right" to marry the same gender, surely you have the right to marry multiple people of the same gender,
you have the right to marry your brothers, sisters, heck even your mom and dad. or even all of them at the same time.
i will even extend it to you should be able to marry minors. who are you to say that 14 year old cant marry a 60 year old. if they consent, why not.
we currently have a very arbitrary age of 18. but why 18, can people not make the decision to get married at 17, or 16, 15, 14, etc.

people have sex before 18 all the time, get pregnant too, should we throw them all in jail? but they cant get married.

Click to expand...

A 14 year old is a minor, minors can not legally give consent. To make marriage of minors legal, you're going to have to change a lot of laws and the basic framework of our legal system regarding them.

As for incest and polygamy, absolutely should be legal. I support gay marriage as well. Why project your own religious beliefs on to other people? Makes you no different than the Brady Bunch.

SovereignAxe said:

Replace "gay marriage, gun rights" with "civil rights"

Click to expand...

This.

osmanobma said:

this is what the amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

yeah nothing about separation of church and state. it clearly mean they cant make a law promoting a religion. like they cant pass a law saying everyone has to be baptist or you go to jail.


you do realize they used to hold church services in congress right?

and im sure you are invoking Thomas jefferson's letter mentioning a "wall of separation". well first of all, seeing as letters written by people who didnt write the constitution, has never been considered considered law, let alone constitutional law, it really has no bearing on public policy. 2nd that very man, thomas jefferson often lead congress in church and prayer inside of the congress building. so much for separation of church and state. you cant get much more conjoined than that.

the intent of the amendment was never to meant to eliminate religion from the public sphere.

Click to expand...

And the separation of church and state does not eliminate religion from the public sphere. It simply makes it so that no religion is granted preferential treatment over another.

I'm not only invoking Jefferson, but Madison as well (you know, the "father of the constitution"?). He specifically mentions that the constitution and our form of government has benefited, as has the church, from "the total separation of the church from the state." You may read many more of his quotes[/quote], but don't play the game of "they didn't mean what they clearly meant and said they meant."

Tawnos said:

Some of us have realized that loving our neighbors and treating others as we want to be treated means granting everybody an equal shake at the whole "marriage" business. Simultaneously, those same people recognize there are those who are angry that others might enjoy equality and would violently seek to oppress those of different beliefs. We see that the only way to stand against such oppression is by being our own defenders.

So yeah, not too surprising to see marriage equality and the right to self-defense come together. Delicious.

Click to expand...

Tawnos said:

What conclusion is incorrect, and what's inflammatory about stating how we view equality? Marriage is a word used in two contexts, with two meanings. One is civil marriage, the other is religious. Nothing legally prevents a same-sex couple from being religiously married in the status quo. Civilly, however, is a different story.

People have taken their religious views and voted to impose them upon society, preventing loving couples in long-term relationships from enjoying the civil protections and status of marriage. Ironically, these people are voting based on their religious views, and are usually the same people who would cry out "Sharia!" the moment a Muslim voted to enforce their religious views upon the public.

So, what's the incorrect conclusion? That denying someone a civil marriage because your religion says no or because it makes you feel squicky is denying people equal treatment under the law? That some have acted violently towards gays, including gay bashing and other forms of targeted battery? That self-defense is the only option in many of these cases? As the pink pistols put it: "Armed gays don't get bashed." What's incorrect about those conclusions, and why is expressing them inflammatory?

Click to expand...

The manner/tone in which you express it is inflammatory. Especially that last sentence (but just the overall thing and how you make homosexuals out to be such victims). Also the "incorrect conclusion" is that you are implying that the right to self-defense and marriage equality are coming together because they are hand-in-hand (or at least the RKBA goes with homosexuality, not nessesarily the other way around). There are plenty of people for marriage equality that are for gun control. Likewise there are plenty of people for less gun control that are against marriage equality. The two things are NOT mutually inclusive as you imply; even if there are a growing number of people for both things.

Should this thread continue to follow the primary path of marriage rights, it will be locked as having nothing to do with OC or RKBA. Please read and follow the forum rules.

Grapeshot said:

Should this thread continue to follow the primary path of marriage rights, it will be locked as having nothing to do with OC or RKBA. Please read and follow the forum rules.

Click to expand...

Grapeshot, the thread should be moved to General since even though marriage is a civil right, just like how people were upset over black and white people getting married. Locking the thread over moving it would be inappropriate.

Grapeshot said:

Should this thread continue to follow the primary path of marriage rights, it will be locked as having nothing to do with OC or RKBA. Please read and follow the forum rules.

Click to expand...

I agree that it should be closed .... linking ***** and gun owners in such a manner to further the **** agenda? Close it this instant!
I only support one and this thread was not posted to further its advancement.

davidmcbeth said:

Close it this instant!
I only support one and this thread was not posted to further its advancement.

Click to expand...

As the OP, I will say I posted it to note the further the advancement of keeping the government the #3!! out of people's business. It represents the trend in the US of people wanting less government interference. As we often say, we don't get to choose which parts of the constitution we're going to follow. If we're going to support freedom in terms of RKBA, it is worth noting other signifiers that freedom in general is advancing along with that and/or in support of it. My point is that this is no longer a left/right or gun nut/Brady Bunch issue. It's becoming a gubment bu&&er off issue.

david.ross said:

Grapeshot, the thread should be moved to General since even though marriage is a civil right, just like how people were upset over black and white people getting married. Locking the thread over moving it would be inappropriate.

Click to expand...

The General Forum is for all RKBA things not related to OC of handguns.

OCDO is NOT a generic civil rights forum - we are dedicate solely to RKBA with the primary focus on OC - let there be no mistake about that.

This thread xposted from the CO forum seems germane to this topic. There is a YouTube linked from the article and also in one of the responding posts.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...n-Colorado-Springs-park&p=1804095#post1804095

Grapeshot said:

The General Forum is for all RKBA things not related to OC of handguns.

OCDO is NOT a generic civil rights forum - we are dedicate solely to RKBA with the primary focus on OC - let there be no mistake about that.

Click to expand...

Then move the thread to the Social Lounge.

davidmcbeth said:

I agree that it should be closed .... linking ***** and gun owners in such a manner to further the **** agenda? Close it this instant!
I only support one and this thread was not posted to further its advancement.

Click to expand...

I would agree with moving the thread to the Social Lounge would be the thing to do. But gays and OC, RKBA do very much have something in common. Gays and Bi adults do carry, we even have a few members here who are gay, let's not insult them by using words that have to be blotted out. I am straight but my wife is bi, I feel she has been insulted. And before many start jumping to conclusion Bi does not mean she is doing any and every female, it means she is sexually attracted to females as well as men. I would appreciate that people refrain from insulting remarks.

A little tidbit from Wiki

"The Pink Pistols are a gay gun rights organization in the United States and Canada. Their mottos are "Pick on someone your own caliber" and "Armed gays don't get bashed." Inspired by a Salon.com article written by Jonathan Rauch,[1] Krikket (aka Doug Krick), a libertarian activist from Illinois while living in Massachusetts, founded the Pink Pistols in July 2000. The organization now has 60 chapters in 33 states and three countries that are principally made up of gun-owning LGBT individuals, though neither status is mandatory for membership.[2]

The political orientation of the Pink Pistols is considered unusual due to the popular perception in the United States of firearms ownership as a "conservative issue" and sexuality as a "liberal issue." However, there is nothing within either of these two single-issues that is mutually exclusive and a variety of other pro-gun organizations exist for groups not typically associated with gun rights (for example the "Democrats for the Second Amendment").

Pink Pistols' activities include firing range visits and political activism. The group occasionally produces report cards on politicians, rating their position on issues of interest to members. According to pinkpistols.org:

davidmcbeth said:

I agree that it should be closed .... linking ***** and gun owners in such a manner to further the **** agenda? Close it this instant!
I only support one and this thread was not posted to further its advancement.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear since the forum software starred out the words. If you in any way bash other civil rights or individuals, it's grounds for a permanent ban regardless of your religious convictions.

As someone who is bisexual and for same sex marriage(in the legal sense, not the religious sense since I'm an atheist), who has done plenty for civil rights, especially firearm rights and standing up in court spending my own money(along with some NRA funding on following proceedings), I found religious bigotry has no place in civil rights and such bigotry only splits the community.

Just an FYI, many of the big hitters who push for firearm rights across the states are gay, so you might want to step back to realize who are the ones actually doing the pushing.

david.ross said:

Then move the thread to the Social Lounge.

Click to expand...

Was considering that.

The problem being that there are two distinct issues here. #1 being gun rights which is solidly connected to OCDO. The other (#2) marriage rights which is not connected at all and would by default only fit in the Social Lounge. Can't very well move half of an intermingled thread - part 1 goes with part 2.

The judgement call was made in favor of the purpose, intent of OCDO.

Grapeshot said:

Was considering that.

The problem being that there are two distinct issues here. #1 being gun rights which is solidly connected to OCDO. The other (#2) marriage rights which is not connected at all and would by default only fit in the Social Lounge. Can't very well move half of an intermingled thread - part 1 goes with part 2.

The judgement call was made in favor of the purpose, intent of OCDO.

Click to expand...

Understood, but all rights are connected to RKBA, without any other rights 2A is moot. But I do get your point, I have stated all I think that needed to be. Time for the Wizard to bring Tennessee Tuxedo home.

I support every person's freedom and responsibility to get involved and to do everything possible to influence the culture of our society according to his beliefs. That goes for 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, and any other amendment. If you're not willing to participate, then you don't have much right to complain.

On the other hand, I don't want to live in a country where the government thinks it needs to tell us what to believe. First they should get roads, railroads, and post office to work. When they get those things fixed, then let's talk about my personal beliefs. I think we have a REAL long way to go!!

Mark 1911 said:

I support every person's freedom and responsibility to get involved and to do everything possible to influence the culture of our society according to his beliefs. That goes for 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, and any other amendment. If you're not willing to participate, then you don't have much right to complain.

Click to expand...

Gay marriage has nothing to do with the religious aspect, which is why I compare gun rights to gay marriage when people speak to me. If people don't want to have guns, don't buy them. If people don't like same sex marriage, then don't get married to the same sex.

Obama's administration has done some to alleviate some of the hardships of not being married to a same sex partner, like forcing hospital visitation of same sex couples upon hospitals via regulation. Imagine not being able to visit your friend in the hospital, especially if his/her whole family had already passed away.

Google, among other companies, have also alleviated some same sex partners who aren't married, like paying them tax benefits compared to what married couples receive.

There's also topics like financial decisions, since marriage is a contract between two people(in the same sense of company partnerships), this even extends to inheritance. There's a whole myriad of benefits from legal marriage.

What I find extremely disgusting are black people going against gay marriage, when 45 years ago black people felt the exact unjust prohibition of interracial marriage.


Unfortunately we can't do what Mexico did and confiscate all religious buildings and assets. Religious institutions aren't supposed to by law be able to involve themselves in politics, yet this happens and the IRS does nothing about their non-profit status. i.e. California and Prop 8 Those institutions are no better than the anti-firearm lobbyists who spend millions upon millions of dollars smearing the image behind real gun owners, which is comparable to same sex couples. Some how people seem to focus on flamers(the weird looking same sex individuals) instead of the normal individuals who you wouldn't know were gay unless they told you.

david ross - you dish out a fair amount of intolerance towards religion. i think YOU should be banned.

david.ross said:

Obama's administration has done some to alleviate some of the hardships of not being married to a same sex partner, like forcing hospital visitation of same sex couples upon hospitals via regulation. Imagine not being able to visit your friend in the hospital, especially if his/her whole family had already passed away.

Click to expand...

Taking this a bit back on topic, the referred video on the CO forum is of a gay man (now a forum member) being disarmed and arrested at a local PrideFest upon leaving after walking around for three hours. His partner videoed the incident and upon asking for information where he is being taken is told "this doesn't concern you". I was livid to see that to wonder if my wife/gf would see me taken away by "government officials" and refused a request to even know where she can post bail for me.

Again, I think the point is that Americans are getting fed up with this type of institutionalized thuggery.