Clint Eastwood on Gay Marriage: 'I don't give a f***'

[werepossum]

best thing I've read in P&N all day!

LOL Glad you enjoyed it.

I find this topic very interesting and to me, personally, irrelevant. I just love to play with words and ideas.

If one agrees that it is perfectly legal and acceptable for two gays to marry then what else is then acceptable? Could three gay men or three gay women marry? What about two straight men and two straight women marrying as one family?

The combinations are staggering.

Marriage is and ought stay a union, both civil and/or religious, of one man and one woman.

Find another word for other types of unions. I like the word "Pairage". That would work, but marriage it is not.

I personally have no moral objections to multiple partner marriage, but it's undeniable that this has complications that gay marriage just doesn't have.

Any societal problems with gay marriage are also present with gay couples living together out of state-recognized wedlock. It should also be obvious that these problems are also present (and not at all necessarily to a lesser degree) in many hetero marriages and in single-parent homes. If one grants to government the power to exclude gay couples from marriage, shouldn't one also grant to government the power to allow or disallow any particular couple or person from marrying, or breeding, or cohabiting? Is that REALLY how we think our government should behave.

I have no particular dog in the gay marriage fight. I'm not gay, I have no gay family members or (surviving) gay friends. But I DO have an interest in making sure that government doesn't interfere with basic human rights, or set up classes of citizens, or discriminate without a damned good reason that can only be satisfied through that discrimination. We all have that interest. We should oppose injustice, not just make sure it doesn't affect us personally.

 

[werepossum]

Protect from who?

The Bill of Rights is directed at the government, to protect us from it.

The irony is, you grant government so much power to enforce our rights, that you've elevated it above its own limitations. Patriot Act is just a small taste of what is to come from such corrupt abuse of power. The Bill of Rights cannot stand so long as the Fox is guarding the Hen House.

The only way this works is with limited and enumerated powers at the highest level. Else the whole concept of limiting it with a Bill of Rights is thrown out.

I agree with this completely, and believe (as I think you do as well) that government which can tell you whom you may or may not marry is not properly limited.

 

[BoberFett]

Just to pick one out, you don't have to testify against your spouse in court. Just that alone necessitates the government defines what marriage is.

That's a good one. But again, that's a government problem, not the rest of society.

How about pension plans. Why wouldn't I just say my sister is my wife if I'm retiring (and single) so she'll get the pension if I die? It's not illegal, since the government has nothing to do with marriage.

Why shouldn't you be able to leave your pension to anyone you choose? Leave it to your sister, a charity, or your dog for all I care. You're owed what you're owed, and it should be transferrable to anyone you choose.

There's also the civil rights issue. What's to stop a pension plan from discriminating and only allowing opposite sex couples to have the option of a spousal pension?

That's a private entity. Private entities should be able to discriminate against anyone they want for any reason they want. But I realize that's just my crazy libertarian idea, as opposed to the Democrat idea that your rights are more important than my right, and your right to force me to serve you as a customer trumps my right as a business to serve anybody I choose. Who's talking about trampling rights now?

 

[BoberFett]

To protect us from those who would refuse to recognize our rights. Rights don't do much good if they can be dismissed on a whim. I won't sell a gun to a black person. I won't sell food to a Jew. I won't medically treat a gay person. But you are free to be black, Jewish, or gay. Liberterian paradise.

So you're saying some people's rights are more important than others? Sounds like you hate some people's right to free association and you want some people forced to serve others. You have a strange idea of rights.

 

[BoberFett]

Judging from Gonad's posts, I believe he wouldn't be happy until there are at least 11 billion laws on the books that describe in spectacular detail every action and thought that is legal and illegal... after all, people are just mindless, violent creatures who need absolute direction and strict management from a benevolent government to function properly. He'll deny it of course, but taking a page from moonbeam's playbook, it seems his subconscious fear and hatred of Man decrees an all knowing, all powerful construct to keep people pacified and properly behaved.

 

[actuarial]

That's a good one. But again, that's a government problem, not the rest of society.

I know it's a government problem. One which requires them to define marriage.

Why shouldn't you be able to leave your pension to anyone you choose? Leave it to your sister, a charity, or your dog for all I care. You're owed what you're owed, and it should be transferrable to anyone you choose.

You're not 'owed what you're owed' when it comes to a pension. A spousal pension is typically paid until the death of said spouse. How does a charity die?

That's a private entity. Private entities should be able to discriminate against anyone they want for any reason they want. But I realize that's just my crazy libertarian idea, as opposed to the Democrat idea that your rights are more important than my right, and your right to force me to serve you as a customer trumps my right as a business to serve anybody I choose. Who's talking about trampling rights now?

It's not really a 'Democrat' view being espoused, as every major political party in North America forces their beliefs on others far worse than I've suggested here.

And it's not 'my right to force you to serve', it's not even my rights I'm concerned about at all. I'm a white male, so none of this benefits me personally, aside from living in a just country. With that said, I do believe it's a right of people to not be discriminated based on race, religion, age or sexual orientation.

If you disagree with that being a right, then that's our disagreement. It has nothing to do with my rights being more important that your rights.

If not, then we're at an impasse either way. Someone's rights, in my opinion at least, are going to get trampled on. Are we just supposed to close our eyes and pretend it doesn't happen in these situations? Whomever is bigger wins? Whomever brings a gun wins?

It's possible to have a discussion on this without going so black and white on the issue as "you think your rights are more important than mine", especially when the argument is so easily flipped.

 

[WHAMPOM]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/14/clint-eastwood-i-dont-give-a-fck-if-gays-marry/

It's not a good sign if the embodiment of the Angry White Man thinks you're full of shit on an important wedge issue.

YAY! A big "YAY!" for Mr. Eastwood, reminds me of McCarthy getting told he was full of crap.

 

[Red Dawn]

Like Mr. Eastwood, I really don't just a f*** what the gays do or don't do. If they want to have a civil union great, but don't call it marriage. It's not. Oh, yes, I know want to know about your sex life. Please have a bit of character and class, keep it private. Thank you.

Who the fuck are you to tell others what marriage is? You want it to be a religious union, fine dick nob, there are religions the recogonize same sex marriages.

 

[gevorg]

Coming soon to the theaters near you... "Clint Eastwood on Beastility and Polygamy".

Reserve your tickets today and get a bonus: "Clint Eastwood's vision on Large Hardon Collider".