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

[randomrogue]

Clint Eastwood was the mayor of Carmel by the Sea a number of years back.

 

[rudder]

Why do we need marriage licenses at all?

taxes... and I can tell the hospital what they can do or not do with my spouse. The license provides some legal rights were common law stuff gets kind of murky. An unmarried couple sharing a house splits = a mess. A married couple sharing a house divorces = a mess, but it is an organized mess at least as there is a clear definition in each state of who owns what.

 

[JS80]

Marriage is a legal contract between two people regarding assets and liabilities. That's it. That's it as far as the state is concerned. The state doesn't give a shit whether you love each other or not. They have nothing to do with the "happiness" factor.

So why can the state somehow deny a gay couple equal rights regarding assets and liabilities?

Let people get married - straight and gay. The state should support their legal rights regarding property and stop meddling in it. All they're doing now is using it as a wedge issue to confuse voters and distract them from real and pressing issues.

Very easy way to transfer assets upon death without paying tax. Aka fraud.

 

[BoberFett]

Very easy way to transfer assets upon death without paying tax. Aka fraud.

Kind of like corporate mergers.

 

[Binarycow]

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.

why not? and I don't want to hear any religious BS about that either. Who gives a care what it's called if one is neither of the parties who are getting married.

 

[a777pilot]

Are you trying to tell us something here? :awe:

I digress, the meanings of words change, as they have throughout history.
Edit: They don't call it a cockpit anymore, if I remember correctly the term used now is "Flight Deck". *Shrug*

They don't call it a cockpit anymore

I'm old. When I earned my Wings of Gold (Naval Aviator) it was called a cockpit. When I retired it was a Flight Deck. Just more PC crap.

 

[a777pilot]

why not? and I don't want to hear any religious BS about that either. Who gives a care what it's called if one is neither of the parties who are getting married.

I already answered that and my answer had nothing to do with your hated religion.

 

[Atreus21]

Are you trying to tell us something here? :awe:

I digress, the meanings of words change, as they have throughout history.
Edit: They don't call it a cockpit anymore, if I remember correctly the term used now is "Flight Deck". *Shrug*

Depends. If it's guys in there it's the cockpit. If it's women it's the box office.

 

[werepossum]

Depends. If it's guys in there it's the cockpit. If it's women it's the box office.

LOL!

Eastwood is of course right. And the Libertarians have a lot more of what both parties purport to want than do the parties themselves. Both sides are in love with using the power of government to shape the country to their wishes, and in the end, almost all of us want more government than does the Libertarian Party. We just want it for different reasons.

 

[Infohawk]

I don't think celebrity opinions are especially important, regardless of whether they played an angry white guy in the movies or not.

But it seems pretty clear we're at a point where the majority doesn't give a fuck anymore, especially when we have bigger problems like the economy to worry about.

 

[actuarial]

Because words have, or use to have, meaning.

Why not just call it a Cockpit......as in "I now pronounce you pilot and pilot". The they could go around saying they were pilots. Sound good to me. Words have no meaning so why not.

Party guest: Are you two a couple?

Steve: Why yes, Bruce and I are a Cockpit. We have been pilots together for two years now.

I have read many definitions of marriage that do not preclude gay marriage.

Originally, marriage was purely religious. Do you believe that straight couples of different religions should not call their union a marriage? How about straight couples without a religious affiliation?

Words certainly have meaning, and the union of two men is barely a change to the meaning of the word marriage.

 

[finglobes]

Clint jumped the shark along time ago (Well at least since the Flags/Fathers film). Do homosexual groups leave others alone? Do peoples votes get overturned by homosexual judges and others? The idea that its "libertarian" to let one group rampage through society unopposed is mental. Take note that the Dem lose in a heavy Dem district (Wiener's, Schumer's..) was to a guy that strongly supports marriage amendment act and openly opposes homosexual marriage. Outsiders bought and intimidated pols to vote for homosexual marriage when it would have never passed in NY since minorities are strongly opposed. Final election results always show polls failed to predict how much people oppose boys marrying each other.

 

[Theb]

Do homosexual groups leave others alone?

Yes.

Do peoples votes get overturned by homosexual judges and others?

No, at least I haven't seen any evidence that homosexual judges behave any differently than heterosexual judges.

The idea that its "libertarian" to let one group rampage through society unopposed is mental.

wat?

 

[alkemyst]

He really defined the baby boomer republicans today.

bipartizan dogma is the main limitation of our country.

 

[1prophet]

Clint jumped the shark along time ago (Well at least since the Flags/Fathers film). Do homosexual groups leave others alone? Do peoples votes get overturned by homosexual judges and others? The idea that its "libertarian" to let one group rampage through society unopposed is mental. Take note that the Dem lose in a heavy Dem district (Wiener's, Schumer's..) was to a guy that strongly supports marriage amendment act and openly opposes homosexual marriage. Outsiders bought and intimidated pols to vote for homosexual marriage when it would have never passed in NY since minorities are strongly opposed. Final election results always show polls failed to predict how much people oppose boys marrying each other.

That district NY-9 is a bit of an anomaly because of the large and relatively conservative Jewish population, your not going to intimidate them to vote pro gay marriage.

 

[thraashman]

I have read many definitions of marriage that do not preclude gay marriage.

Originally, marriage was purely religious. Do you believe that straight couples of different religions should not call their union a marriage? How about straight couples without a religious affiliation?

Words certainly have meaning, and the union of two men is barely a change to the meaning of the word marriage.

Actually marriage has existed in some form in virtually every culture in history. Sometimes religious, sometimes not. In many cultures it worked more in the form of a property transaction. Many other animal species take lifetime same gender companions.

The wording of the 14th Amendment indicates that natural born citizens all receive equal rights and privilege. So long as the government provides any legal benefits to marriage it is in violation of the 14th Amendment to disallow homosexual couples to marry. Allowing a civil union with the same rights still has the problem of violating the Supreme Court case Brown v The Board of Education where it was ruled that "separate but equal" is inherently not equal.

Having said all that. Unforgiven is an awesome movie.

 

[JEDIYoda]

A license is a permit to do something that would otherwise be illegal - fishing license, hunting license, drivers license,,,,,.

Thats not true at all....

 

[werepossum]

Clint jumped the shark along time ago (Well at least since the Flags/Fathers film). Do homosexual groups leave others alone? Do peoples votes get overturned by homosexual judges and others? The idea that its "libertarian" to let one group rampage through society unopposed is mental. Take note that the Dem lose in a heavy Dem district (Wiener's, Schumer's..) was to a guy that strongly supports marriage amendment act and openly opposes homosexual marriage. Outsiders bought and intimidated pols to vote for homosexual marriage when it would have never passed in NY since minorities are strongly opposed. Final election results always show polls failed to predict how much people oppose boys marrying each other.

I believe his point was not that a majority supports gay marriage or any other particular issue, but rather that on ALL issues those not directly involved need to butt out. Government governs best when it governs least; why on Earth would we want to give government the power to decide whom we can or can't marry? Government should protect our rights, not establish our rights.

I'd love it if all Americans were happily straight and monogamous, but they aren't, and no amount of restricting their freedom will make them so. Forcing square pegs into round holes doesn't make round pegs, just damaged pegs. Why not let the square pegs find their own square holes without deciding whether square pegs or round pegs are superior? That way everyone wins, everyone has the opportunity to pursue happiness, and we don't ever have to hear about gay marriage again. (The best way to stop people from complaining about discrimination is after all to stop discriminating.) You can still fight gay advocacy groups where you think they are trying to do bad things that directly affect others, but I think you'll find that most gay people want the same things straight people want - to be free to pursue happiness, love and security.

 

[ShawnD1]

Better solution: government get the fuck out of marriage. No marriage for anyone.

The law should officially change the title to "civil union" or whatever. That'll really piss some people off

 

[Ns1]

I'd love it if all Americans were happily straight and monogamous, but they aren't, and no amount of restricting their freedom will make them so. Forcing square pegs into round holes doesn't make round pegs, just damaged pegs. Why not let the square pegs find their own square holes without deciding whether square pegs or round pegs are superior?

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

 

[a777pilot]

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.

 

[Pulsar]

I like how "who gives a fuck about the civil rights of others" is somehow a moderate stance to take. It is a big deal, it's just the wrong people are making it one.

I like how you completely missed the whole point of what he said in your hurry to post.

He was very clear that they should be allowed to marry, and that the government is fucking around with people when they shouldn't be. Allow them to marry and be happy.

Of course, you probably saw the fact that he's a Republican and immediately tuned out half of what was written.

Republican=bad, right?

 

[randomrogue]

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.

There is a fallacy which describes your argument. We're not talking about unions between goats and people or space monkeys and 4 women. We're talking about marriage between two people.

 

[BoberFett]

I like how you completely missed the whole point of what he said in your hurry to post.

He was very clear that they should be allowed to marry, and that the government is fucking around with people when they shouldn't be. Allow them to marry and be happy.

Of course, you probably saw the fact that he's a Republican and immediately tuned out half of what was written.

Republican=bad, right?

Gonad isn't a Barbarian. He's just a Gonad, full stop.

 

[Nebor]

Because words have, or use to have, meaning.

Why not just call it a Cockpit......as in "I now pronounce you pilot and pilot". The they could go around saying they were pilots. Sound good to me. Words have no meaning so why not.

Party guest: Are you two a couple?

Steve: Why yes, Bruce and I are a Cockpit. We have been pilots together for two years now.

Well that would get confusing. I mean up until now if you asked me to take a ride in your cockpit, I'd assume you wanted me to plow your poop shoot like all those sailors did for 20 years. But now you want to try to legitimize your years of promiscuously seducing men with your cockpit by changing the term to represent some type of commitment?

How's your cockpit holding up after all these years anyway? Judging from how uptight your posts here are, it must be tight enough to squeeze off a condom.