FYI: A list of those who know nothing of Freedom
- Thread starter Shuxclams
- Start date
I dunno. In every case where it as left up to the voters same sex marriage has lost. Even in california. It seems to me that people who support gay marriage are the extremists and in the minority. People who yell states rights are basically just trying ot get the judges to legislate.
Leave it up to the people,put it to a vote.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,879
- 10,690
- 147
As a Pennsylvanian, I would like to state the little Rick Santorum is a world class asshat and that Arlen Specter's personal mannerisms don't just creepily remind onlookers of Richard Nixon for no apparent reason.
'Tis a sad day here in Penn's Woods.
'Tis a sad day here in Penn's Woods.
ARe we talking about the marriage amendment? Are you afraid to mention the topic in your thread title? Hmm?
If it is, then I'll state my two scents:
1) I'm more concerned about legislation that would preserve more hetero marriages, 50% success leaves many kids in broken familys.
2) If we allow marriages between same sex peeps, why do we limit the number to just 2? Why not 3, 5 or 7?
If it is, then I'll state my two scents:
1) I'm more concerned about legislation that would preserve more hetero marriages, 50% success leaves many kids in broken familys.
2) If we allow marriages between same sex peeps, why do we limit the number to just 2? Why not 3, 5 or 7?
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,239
- 136
I would say most people don't really give a rats. They only ones who really do (IMO) are more radical elements on both sides.
That being said, I don't like anyone trying to mess w/ the constitution (esp "activist" presidents) w/o a good goddam reason. This isn't one. This issue can be handled by the state legislatures, which states like Mass are already doing. If there was such a big public outcry their legislature could and would have passed legislation outlawing gay marriage. There was controversy, but no concensus, so they decided to punt and let the court ruling stand.
This whole "activist judges" issue is BS and just political pandering IMO. We have a clearly defined seperation of powers and check and balance system. The idea that a few (mid-ranking even) judges can aribitrarily impose social policy against the will of the state and federal executive and legislative (as other judicial) branches AND the collective will of the people is nonsense. If it is true, we have a lot more problems than a few gays pushing for marriage.
- Oct 10, 1999
- 9,286
- 15
- 81
1) The Goverment has no business is personal affiars such as relationships.
2) You obviously have no idea who or what Gay people are. This isnt about protecting the rights or giving special rights to sexual deviants, polymory or insestual relationships.... Its about two human beings that want to join in a union and recieve the same benifits as the rest of the country. Now how the country goes about it is a different story.
How about this, Since Marriage is a religious construct. All "Marriages" are civil-unions unless sanctioned by a Church. Churches can disqualify people from getting "married" dependant on what there particular belief on the issue is. Therefore you would get a civil-union and then find a church that will recognize your "Marriage".
SHUX
I think the name "Crapo" in your list befits him, and the rest.
Define broken. If my CD player is broken - it's incapable of playing CDs. If the two people in a marriage split up, does "broken" mean they are incapable of raising their children? No, thus the marriage may be broken, but the capacity to raise children is not broken. The word "divorced" is applicable whereas the word "broken" is not.
True, there shouldn't be a limit. Afterall, in a union of 7 people, if one leaves or is ousted, the children still have 6 people to raise them, and according to your logic displayed in the first question, that's good, because a lesser number of people working together to raise the children is broken (incapable or less capable) compared to a larger number of people working together to raise the children. By your own logic, a limit of two per marriage is not sensible nor is it for the best.
When you can find logical reasons instead of unreasoned religious or moral beliefs to support your advocacy of restricting the freedom of other people that don't concern you, please share those reasons.
Define broken. If my CD player is broken - it's incapable of playing CDs. If the two people in a marriage split up, does "broken" mean they are incapable of raising their children? No, thus the marriage may be broken, but the capacity to raise children is not broken. The word "divorced" is applicable whereas the word "broken" is not.
True, there shouldn't be a limit. Afterall, in a union of 7 people, if one leaves or is ousted, the children still have 6 people to raise them, and according to your logic displayed in the first question, that's good, because a lesser number of people working together to raise the children is broken (incapable or less capable) compared to a larger number of people working together to raise the children. By your own logic, a limit of two per marriage is not sensible nor is it for the best.
When you can find logical reasons instead of unreasoned religious or moral beliefs to support your advocacy of restricting the freedom of other people that don't concern you, please share those reasons.
Gunslinger08
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2001
- 13,234
- 2
- 81
I'd be up for allowing the states to decide for same sex marriage. I personally would vote for a Civil Union to be created, allowing for a union between two consenting adults with associated legal privileges and duties. Leave marriage to churches.
So you are saying that gays and lesbians who want to get married are "radicals"? I don't think it's an accurate label. Also, I give a rat's... I don't know any gays or lesbians who want to get married, I'm not gay and I don't want to get married to a gay person, but I do give a rat's... about the government adding BULLSHlT to the Constitution.
So you are saying you do give a rat's... or you don't? But you're not a radical on one side or the other are you? I guess I agree with you (except for the radical labeling); most people could care less about what the bastards in Washington do to the Constitution.
Well the mid-ranking ones can't, but the highest ranking judges can, of course, and do at times. However there's never been a Justice of the SCOTUS that could be lumped in with the imaginary group of horrible "activist judges."
Actually they do, a marriage aside from being a contract between two people is also technically a contract with the government and if you want, your god. It effects everything from tax to citizenship status (in some cases). It is most definitely in their domain.
Gunslinger08
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2001
- 13,234
- 2
- 81
Agreed. If a ban does pass, I'm sure it will be brought in front of the supreme court within a matter of months. They will be the final judge of whether the government is overstepping it's boundaries.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Here's what it takes to be a Conservative Republican today:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You have to believe the following to be gospel / facts -
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him,
a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation,
and HMO's can make life or death medical decisions without any medical training.
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.
You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You have to believe the following to be gospel / facts -
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him,
a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation,
and HMO's can make life or death medical decisions without any medical training.
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.
You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Hmm... I didn't vote for Gordon Smith in 2002 (voted for the Libertarian candidate instead). I will have to remember to give him my vote in 2008.
We have equal rights for marriage as it now stands. The same-sex marriage issue is not about equal rights, nor is it about removing government from marriage, and it most certainly is not about discriminating or not discriminating against anyone (so put your "race cards" away, eh? it's a poor ad hominem argument). It is about expanding the federal government's secular powers over marriage and expanding the coverage (and thus the cost) of socialist benefits programs that IMO should not exist in the first place.
edit: And it certainly has nothing to do with "freedom". That'd be a joke if it wasn't such a lie. The federal government currently has no powers over marriage as it is included in the 10th Amendment with powers delegated to the states. Wake up. Keep this issue where it belongs, in the states with the voters. But the voters always turn it down? Well, hello!?!? It seems the majority doesn't want same-sex marriage. Are we ALL homophobic? Are we ALL anti-freedom? :roll:
The reality is that the pro-same-sex marriage crowd is trying to backdoor this issue to expand socialist benefit programs against the will of the majority, and that is neither freedom nor democracy. Hell, in Portland the county commissioners made their decision on the issue behind closed doors!
We have equal rights for marriage as it now stands. The same-sex marriage issue is not about equal rights, nor is it about removing government from marriage, and it most certainly is not about discriminating or not discriminating against anyone (so put your "race cards" away, eh? it's a poor ad hominem argument). It is about expanding the federal government's secular powers over marriage and expanding the coverage (and thus the cost) of socialist benefits programs that IMO should not exist in the first place.
edit: And it certainly has nothing to do with "freedom". That'd be a joke if it wasn't such a lie. The federal government currently has no powers over marriage as it is included in the 10th Amendment with powers delegated to the states. Wake up. Keep this issue where it belongs, in the states with the voters. But the voters always turn it down? Well, hello!?!? It seems the majority doesn't want same-sex marriage. Are we ALL homophobic? Are we ALL anti-freedom? :roll:
The reality is that the pro-same-sex marriage crowd is trying to backdoor this issue to expand socialist benefit programs against the will of the majority, and that is neither freedom nor democracy. Hell, in Portland the county commissioners made their decision on the issue behind closed doors!
What socialist benefit program does gay marriage fall under? What special rights and benefits are gay Americans asking for in regards to this issue? Be specific please.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Surely your question is rhetorical. What special rights and benefits do married couples receive? Specifically, they can't be forced to testify against each other, numerous health coverage benefits and protections, social security and military retirement death and survivorship benefits, income tax benefits, etc. I could list on for days.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter