Jon Stewart FTMFW

[BansheeX]

Marriage is just a word that can be used by anyone to mean anything... until government, through socialist engineering concepts, begins legislating special tax breaks for one type of group's definition. Gay people can get married and call it marriage no problem. The problem is they can't get those tax breaks. All other property contracts are available to them. Eliminate the income tax with a corresponding reduction in government spending, and it will become impossible for government to discriminate against certain types of marriage, families, investments, or incomes. All that infighting and wasteful spending, history.

Game over, libertarians win. Next thread?

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Bullshit. Let the churches call their ritual a cohabitation license. Lets keep the sacred tradition of declaring ones love before the citizens and God by its usual name of marriage.

I never declared my love to anyone but my wife.

And your point is?

I didn't declare my love to a god so I couldn't have possibly followed the traditional marriage guidelines. Therefore I should have entered a civil union, but since that isn't an option, I was forced to get a marriage license.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: BansheeX
Marriage is just a word that can be used by anyone to mean anything... until government, through socialist engineering concepts, begins legislating special tax breaks for one type of group's definition. Gay people can get married and call it marriage no problem. The problem is they can't get those tax breaks. All other property contracts are available to them. Eliminate the income tax with a corresponding reduction in government spending, and it will become impossible for government to discriminate against certain types of marriage, families, investments, or incomes. All that infighting and wasteful spending, history.

Game over, libertarians win. Next thread?

I'm sure that there are plenty other applications of marriage other then tax benefits. Health insurance is another huge example.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
ZV you are on the right track and I appreciate your support . Your solution is the most obvious and as you said, pragmatic. I can't buy into 100% because it does not allow for any of the more exotic scenarios (ex. polygamy). Polygamy should absolutely 100% be legal, consenting adults should be able to structure their relationships however they choose and afford the protection of law. What I have been trying to get at is that as long as we have laws and regulations based on something as personal as relationships we will CONSTANTLY face controversy as society changes. The only TRUE solution will be to remove the presence of government in this arena entirely.

EDIT: just wanted to note that i really regret my wording of 'allow for'. that is the wrong approach to take, we should only view laws in their true context - taking AWAY freedom as opposed to specifically granting it

Do you feel the same way about 2 consenting adults, that just happen to have the same parents?

Absolutely, why should I have any right to tell them otherwise?

Apparently you have not seen the effects of incest on offspring.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31



Apparently you have not seen the effects of incest on offspring.

I have, but it isn't illegal for two carriers of recessive harmful traits to mate.

 

[BansheeX]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: BansheeX
Marriage is just a word that can be used by anyone to mean anything... until government, through socialist engineering concepts, begins legislating special tax breaks for one type of group's definition. Gay people can get married and call it marriage no problem. The problem is they can't get those tax breaks. All other property contracts are available to them. Eliminate the income tax with a corresponding reduction in government spending, and it will become impossible for government to discriminate against certain types of marriage, families, investments, or incomes. All that infighting and wasteful spending, history.

Game over, libertarians win. Next thread?

I'm sure that there are plenty other applications of marriage other then tax benefits. Health insurance is another huge example.

I'm aware of the marriage benefits from government entitlement programs that also shouldn't exist. And private health insurers probably require a government license as proof at the moment to give their special deductions. That license would not exist without the income tax, a license is permission to be recognized for government goodies.

Why isn't this sticking in, yet? When your ideology is for government to redistribute wealth via a tax on production and an inflationary currency, that enables majority votes to steal from others by legislating special breaks or rebates for themselves.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
ZV you are on the right track and I appreciate your support . Your solution is the most obvious and as you said, pragmatic. I can't buy into 100% because it does not allow for any of the more exotic scenarios (ex. polygamy). Polygamy should absolutely 100% be legal, consenting adults should be able to structure their relationships however they choose and afford the protection of law. What I have been trying to get at is that as long as we have laws and regulations based on something as personal as relationships we will CONSTANTLY face controversy as society changes. The only TRUE solution will be to remove the presence of government in this arena entirely.

EDIT: just wanted to note that i really regret my wording of 'allow for'. that is the wrong approach to take, we should only view laws in their true context - taking AWAY freedom as opposed to specifically granting it

Do you feel the same way about 2 consenting adults, that just happen to have the same parents?

Absolutely, why should I have any right to tell them otherwise?

Apparently you have not seen the effects of incest on offspring.

I have also seen the effects of natural birth defects. And the effects of abused children. And abandoned children. So what? The law CANNOT regulate sexual behavior. If siblings fall in love and want to have kids, they will do it. They ALREADY do. You can try to punish them if you wish, but it really has no bearing on your life so I am not really sure what grounds you have to stand on. I hate seeing kids born into poverty also, but you just cannot tell people whom they can have sex or reproduce with. It is a fundamental human right IMO, and impossible to enforce even if you do try to control it.

So, you can fall back on moral guidance (for most people - religious based) or that little voice that gives you the warm fuzzies to think you are doing something 'good' and try to control other people's lives but ultimately it is just not your place and certainly not the governments.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

I have also seen the effects of natural birth defects. And the effects of abused children. And abandoned children. So what? The law CANNOT regulate sexual behavior. If siblings fall in love and want to have kids, they will do it. They ALREADY do. You can try to punish them if you wish, but it really has no bearing on your life so I am not really sure what grounds you have to stand on. I hate seeing kids born into poverty also, but you just cannot tell people whom they can have sex or reproduce with. It is a fundamental human right IMO, and impossible to enforce even if you do try to control it.

So, you can fall back on moral guidance (for most people - religious based) or that little voice that gives you the warm fuzzies to think you are doing something 'good' and try to control other people's lives but ultimately it is just not your place and certainly not the governments.

There is a higher chance for problems when you bring incest into the equation. That is why incest is and will remain unrecognized.

Of course children born with issues effects me. Unless you are super-rich and can afford the care, you will be sucking off the taxpayer teet to pay for your love-affair with your mom.

I dont know what libertarian utopia you think this country should be, but I wouldnt be holding my breath if I were you.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Threads like this just re-affirm why I will never watch the daily show ever again.

This thread is nothing more than a liberal circle-jerk because Huckabee is a Republican - and all Republicans are racists, bigots & tyrants.

When a man and a woman marry, many ways they become a single entity in the eyes of the law - and is for the benefit of parenthood. They are not supposed to be able to divorce. Marriage is supposed to be a life-long commitment to parenthood. It's not my fault the concept of marriage has been destroyed over the years.

But seriously, show me two gay men who have biologically reproduced a child between themselves, and I will stand up and fight for their right to marry.

Until then, gay marriage will not be acceptable to a certain percentage of the population.

So you're willing to accept SOME changes to the concept of marriage over the years, even if you don't agree with them, but gay people is where you draw the line? Why? If it was really about anything you just said, anti-gay marriage groups should ALSO be pushing for a constitutional amendment banning divorce. Yet there is almost NO support for that...which makes your reason look like an excuse instead of a reason to me.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

This. Legal unions for all.

jesus, thank FSM at least one person in this thread can comprehend what i am saying

So if a Religion recognizes and marries gays then it's
OK in your opinion?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

marriage is a civil contract that may or may not also be endorsed by a religion if the couple so chooses.

/thread

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

I have also seen the effects of natural birth defects. And the effects of abused children. And abandoned children. So what? The law CANNOT regulate sexual behavior. If siblings fall in love and want to have kids, they will do it. They ALREADY do. You can try to punish them if you wish, but it really has no bearing on your life so I am not really sure what grounds you have to stand on. I hate seeing kids born into poverty also, but you just cannot tell people whom they can have sex or reproduce with. It is a fundamental human right IMO, and impossible to enforce even if you do try to control it.

So, you can fall back on moral guidance (for most people - religious based) or that little voice that gives you the warm fuzzies to think you are doing something 'good' and try to control other people's lives but ultimately it is just not your place and certainly not the governments.

There is a higher chance for problems when you bring incest into the equation. That is why incest is and will remain unrecognized.

Of course children born with issues effects me. Unless you are super-rich and can afford the care, you will be sucking off the taxpayer teet to pay for your love-affair with your mom.

I dont know what libertarian utopia you think this country should be, but I wouldnt be holding my breath if I were you.

Just because my views are not practical does not mean they are any less accurate, just or fair. If everyone had a bit of idealist in them maybe this country would actually go somewhere instead of just settling for the status quo of our socialist downward spiral.

I don't believe the ill-concieved child of a incestuous couple should qualify for any public funds. Nor do I believe the child of ANY couple should be. The logic that explains why my money should be distributed to someone elses child is beyond me.

You can 'unrecogonize' incest as much as you wish if it is easier than accepting the fact that is a path some choose to take. If you asked my personal opinion, I would say I vehemently disagree with incestuous relationships and would advise anyone strongly against them. But, its not my place to force people to do what I believe. They are free to make decisions, even if they are poor, and they must suffer the consequences. Sucks for the children, but life is shitty sometimes.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

This. Legal unions for all.

jesus, thank FSM at least one person in this thread can comprehend what i am saying

So if a Religion recognizes and marries gays then it's
OK in your opinion?

it is absolutely of no consequence to me what a religion chooses to endorse. its members are there voluntarily. i support people's freedom to join which church or cult they wish.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Huckabee's a raging bigot just like the rest of the homophobes in the Republican party. No surprise there. Stewart owned his ass last night.

I was cringing at the interview. It's just further proof that you can't put together a logical argument against gay marriage.

As likeable and eloquent as Mike is, he can't win that argument or even make his viewpoint seem reasonable.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Evan
Gay marriage will be legal. Whether some religious Americans accept that eventual reality or not, is up to them.

This. It is simply a matter of time.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
And you are delusional if you truly think marriage can ever be separated from its religious roots, regardless of how you try to twist the definition and semantics.

My marriage will be 100% separated from it. I guess I am delusional.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Huckabee's a raging bigot just like the rest of the homophobes in the Republican party. No surprise there. Stewart owned his ass last night.

Apparently you missed the part where the president elect (D) is also a "homophobe"?

What about the part where prop 8 here in CA passed largely due to a segment of democrats known as "African Americans"?

While im not denying there are tons of religious freaks are homophobes in the Republican party, you should look around at the other side as well, because the homophobia is strong.

Two-party system. Gotta love it. :roll:

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
And you are delusional if you truly think marriage can ever be separated from its religious roots, regardless of how you try to twist the definition and semantics.

My marriage will be 100% separated from it. I guess I am delusional.

Sadly, it doesn't matter what you think. A large portion of people will interpret your union as a bond under god and want to define it as such. Furthermore, the CONCEPT itself is a religious construct. Whether you are religious or not, whether you have a religious ceremony or not, the act of officially marrying is steeped in religious history.

Granted, there were likely monogamous relationships prior to the invention of organized religion (makes biological sense given the long gestation period and child development times, also curtails STD spreading), it was religion that institutionalized it. Society is becoming more secular all the time (globalization/mass media/education), but we must not forget where the concept came from (in this country, Christianity's marriage concept specifically).

edit: obviously the most important thing in a relationship is what the individuals in it believe. gay people dont love each other any less, or you in your relationship. just meant in terms of our current controversy in this country... im sure there are many people that view marriage like you do (I am one of them), but that doesn't do anything to resolve the issue

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

I have also seen the effects of natural birth defects. And the effects of abused children. And abandoned children. So what? The law CANNOT regulate sexual behavior. If siblings fall in love and want to have kids, they will do it. They ALREADY do. You can try to punish them if you wish, but it really has no bearing on your life so I am not really sure what grounds you have to stand on. I hate seeing kids born into poverty also, but you just cannot tell people whom they can have sex or reproduce with. It is a fundamental human right IMO, and impossible to enforce even if you do try to control it.

So, you can fall back on moral guidance (for most people - religious based) or that little voice that gives you the warm fuzzies to think you are doing something 'good' and try to control other people's lives but ultimately it is just not your place and certainly not the governments.

There is a higher chance for problems when you bring incest into the equation. That is why incest is and will remain unrecognized.

Of course children born with issues effects me. Unless you are super-rich and can afford the care, you will be sucking off the taxpayer teet to pay for your love-affair with your mom.

I dont know what libertarian utopia you think this country should be, but I wouldnt be holding my breath if I were you.

Slightly higher, but still small until several generations of such unions occur. And no higher than any two random people carrying some recessive defect. This was a widespread tradition among many royal families.

I'm not arguing in favor, but just saying that from a scientific standpoint, your statement is highly inaccurate. There was an article on this topic in NG or something not too long ago.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Bullshit. Let the churches call their ritual a cohabitation license. Lets keep the sacred tradition of declaring ones love before the citizens and God by its usual name of marriage.

I never declared my love to anyone but my wife.

And your point is?

I didn't declare my love to a god so I couldn't have possibly followed the traditional marriage guidelines. Therefore I should have entered a civil union, but since that isn't an option, I was forced to get a marriage license.

Obviously you didn't follow tradition, then. You got the dumbed down civil marriage but with the declare it before the citizen's option fully intact.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Sadly, it doesn't matter what you think. A large portion of people will interpret your union as a bond under god and want to define it as such. Furthermore, the CONCEPT itself is a religious construct. Whether you are religious or not, whether you have a religious ceremony or not, the act of officially marrying is steeped in religious history.

Granted, there were likely monogamous relationships prior to the invention of organized religion (makes biological sense given the long gestation period and child development times, also curtails STD spreading), it was religion that institutionalized it. Society is becoming more secular all the time (globalization/mass media/education), but we must not forget where the concept came from (in this country, Christianity's marriage concept specifically).

You keep saying that marriage is "steeped in religious history." You even go so for to qualify your argument that "we <not> must forget where the concept came from (in this country, Christianity's marriage concept specifically)"

I take it you think that the origins of marriage are in religion. I think you are wrong. I think you have this very narrow view of marriage (Western Christianity) and unfortunately (for you) here in the USA we are a pluristic society. Marriage is more than just a Christian institution. People were getting married long before Christianity. If I were to read up on the history of marriage I am certain I would find a more broad interpretation than you are leading us to believe. But what do I know... it doesnt matter.

I acknowledge that Christianity's version of marriage is what dominates our culture/society here in America. But AGAIN, a pluristic society allows for the philosophy and traditions of many different types. And generally our laws are built to protect these differences in tradition/philosophies/behaviors/etc etc etc. Are there exceptions to this rule? I think so. But You have to acknowledge that although Christianity's version of marriage is the dominant version, it is not the only version. And to dictate law based on your version/beliefs of marriage is wrong in THIS country at least...

I find it amusing that the type of government you advocate for, if taken to the logical extent in which you believe that your religious beliefs should be legislated, is exactly what some of those Theocracies In Eastern Europe and the Middle East implement. You see the minority believers..the Christians in the middle east, in East Asia, etc etc being persecuting and harmed all the time because of this.

WRT this issue, we are struggling as a society to limit the influence on religion in OUR state of government. Pure and simple.

anyways just my .02. Carry on with your "Crusade"

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
So when is Obama going to get the message that gay marriage is OK?

Probably around the time you get the message that you are a fucking troll.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Sadly, it doesn't matter what you think. A large portion of people will interpret your union as a bond under god and want to define it as such. Furthermore, the CONCEPT itself is a religious construct. Whether you are religious or not, whether you have a religious ceremony or not, the act of officially marrying is steeped in religious history.

Granted, there were likely monogamous relationships prior to the invention of organized religion (makes biological sense given the long gestation period and child development times, also curtails STD spreading), it was religion that institutionalized it. Society is becoming more secular all the time (globalization/mass media/education), but we must not forget where the concept came from (in this country, Christianity's marriage concept specifically).

You keep saying that marriage is "steeped in religious history." You even go so for to qualify your argument that "we <not> must forget where the concept came from (in this country, Christianity's marriage concept specifically)"

I take it you think that the origins of marriage are in religion. I think you are wrong. I think you have this very narrow view of marriage (Western Christianity) and unfortunately (for you) here in the USA we are a pluristic society. Marriage is more than just a Christian institution. People were getting married long before Christianity. If I were to read up on the history of marriage I am certain I would find a more broad interpretation than you are leading us to believe. But what do I know... it doesnt matter.

I acknowledge that Christianity's version of marriage is what dominates our culture/society here in America. But AGAIN, a pluristic society allows for the philosophy and traditions of many different types. And generally our laws are built to protect these differences in tradition/philosophies/behaviors/etc etc etc. Are there exceptions to this rule? I think so. But You have to acknowledge that although Christianity's version of marriage is the dominant version, it is not the only version. And to dictate law based on your version/beliefs of marriage is wrong in THIS country at least...

I find it amusing that the type of government you advocate for, if taken to the logical extent in which you believe that your religious beliefs should be legislated, is exactly what some of those Theocracies In Eastern Europe and the Middle East implement. You see the minority believers..the Christians in the middle east, in East Asia, etc etc being persecuting and harmed all the time because of this.

WRT this issue, we are struggling as a society to limit the influence on religion in OUR state of government. Pure and simple.

anyways just my .02. Carry on with your "Crusade"

wtf are you talking about? did you read the thread? nowhere in the post you quoted did i advocate govt. legislating anything regarding marriage, in fact,that is the total opposite of everything i have said here.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
So when is Obama going to get the message that gay marriage is OK?

Probably around the time you get the message that you are a fucking troll.

So anyone that points out the hypocrisy in the democratic party will be called a "troll"?


Way to add to the discussion there Jr.!

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

wtf are you talking about? did you read the thread? nowhere in the post you quoted did i advocate govt. legislating anything regarding marriage, in fact,that is the total opposite of everything i have said here.

fair enough if you are not advocating for Prop 8 then that is my mistake. But your view of marriage imho is still very much narrowminded making the rest of my post still valid.