Kinder, Gentler, Saner

[Cerpin Taxt]

Where exactly doesn't the "right" originate then?

What kind of stupid-assed question is that? WTF does it even mean for a right to "originate" from somewhere.

Lemme clue you in to the way freedom works, you authoritarian twit. In dubio pro libertate. Quite literally, everything is the right of a free person by default. It is the government's job to limit those rights only as much as necessary to protect the rights of its citizen's equally. Rights do not "originate" anywhere. They are inherent.

On the other hand, it is pretty clear that you think that people are only entitled to do those things specifically allowed to them by the government. "Anything which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden," as it were. It is a pathetically typical mindset of you jackoff conservatives that love to boast out of the other sides of your mouths about how everyone hates us for "our freedoms." Fucking make me wanna puke.

 

[JSt0rm]

Didn't figure you could handle rational discussion but I thought I'd give you a chance. Oh well.

You thought you would give me a chance to argue your strawman? No thanks.

 

[Craig234]

CAd has created a strawman that you all are blindly walking into. He wants to say government shouldnt be in the marriage business but that has nothing to do with this issue does it?

It's not a straw man, it's a separate topic. It might be called a red herring.

 

[sandorski]

Cad's just using the old tactic of doing nothing by feigning wanting to do something different. He has no intention of doing anything different, he just is trying to prevent something from changing.

The same tactic used by Republicans regarding HealthCare or GW/GCC legislation. No need to actually do anything, just maintain the status quo.

 

[BoberFett]

Lemme clue you in to the way freedom works, you authoritarian twit. In dubio pro libertate. Quite literally, everything is the right of a free person by default. It is the government's job to limit those rights only as much as necessary to protect the rights of its citizen's equally. Rights do not "originate" anywhere. They are inherent.

Funny then that you believe the answer to government restricting homosexuals peoples rights is to create additional legislation, rather than simply stop regulating marriage completely.

I'm not sure why CAD is bothering to argue with you morons. You howling monkeys that make up the fecal flinging left wing of this forum is so epically devoid of intelligence that he has no chance of having any kind of logical conversation.

 

[werepossum]

CAd has created a strawman that you all are blindly walking into. He wants to say government shouldnt be in the marriage business but that has nothing to do with this issue does it?

Hardly a strawman, it's another way to fix the problem of discrimination by sexual orientation. I think though that even if government gets out of the marriage business, additional legislation will be generated, if only to establish that a business cannot discriminate by sexual orientation. If government does not recognize marriage at all, then every business would be free to adopt its own policies. Some hospitals would allow gay visitation rights and others wouldn't, some apartment complexes would allow gay couples and others wouldn't, etc. While that appeals to my libertarian tendencies it's also a nightmare of confusion and flies in the face of our Constitution, namely that everyone is endowed by his or her Maker with certain inalienable rights and Men create governments to protect those rights. Since rights tend to be things that are inalienable, at least within public accommodation, and since some people are bitterly opposed to homosexuality, I think legislation would end up being necessary anyway. At the very least, government would need to define its policy on taxes, Social Security rights, joint liability, and a host of other issues if government were to get out of the marriage business.

However, pointing out issues to be resolved does not mean Cad's point is a strawman or a red herring or another issue. It's still just another possible solution to the same problem, and not without its appeal.

 

[Scotteq]

You thought you would give me a chance to argue your strawman? No thanks.

It's not a straw man, it's a separate topic. It might be called a red herring.

Well - Since the problem here is that Government has specified laws stating "Opposite Sexes Only" - removing the Government's oversight of all Marriages means there would be nothing at all to prevent same sex marriages. They would be legal!

But if you guys want to continue acting like asshats because you want it written a different way, then that's your problem.

 

[werepossum]

Well - Since the problem here is that Government has specified laws stating "Opposite Sexes Only" - removing the Government's oversight of all Marriages means there would be nothing at all to prevent same sex marriages. They would be legal!

But if you guys want to continue acting like asshats because you want it written a different way, then that's your problem.

Well said.

 

[xj0hnx]

Well - Since the problem here is that Government has specified laws stating "Opposite Sexes Only" - removing the Government's oversight of all Marriages means there would be nothing at all to prevent same sex marriages. They would be legal!

But if you guys want to continue acting like asshats because you want it written a different way, then that's your problem.

That's because they worship big government, and want the government to be involved in every aspect of the citizens lives.

 

[sandorski]

Well - Since the problem here is that Government has specified laws stating "Opposite Sexes Only" - removing the Government's oversight of all Marriages means there would be nothing at all to prevent same sex marriages. They would be legal!

But if you guys want to continue acting like asshats because you want it written a different way, then that's your problem.

Have they done this? Seems to me that's what the Republicans have been trying to do ever since the issue of Gay Marriage first came onto the scene.

Then there's who is opposing Gay Marriage. Strangely it seems to be Religion making all the fuss, not Government.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

What kind of stupid-assed question is that? WTF does it even mean for a right to "originate" from somewhere.

Lemme clue you in to the way freedom works, you authoritarian twit. In dubio pro libertate. Quite literally, everything is the right of a free person by default. It is the government's job to limit those rights only as much as necessary to protect the rights of its citizen's equally. Rights do not "originate" anywhere. They are inherent.

On the other hand, it is pretty clear that you think that people are only entitled to do those things specifically allowed to them by the government. "Anything which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden," as it were. It is a pathetically typical mindset of you jackoff conservatives that love to boast out of the other sides of your mouths about how everyone hates us for "our freedoms." Fucking make me wanna puke.

lol, people like you are funny. You get so worked up you forget to think.

Uh, no - what's clear is that you have no clue about me because I do not think that people are only entitled to do those things specifically allowed to them by the gov't. That's the whole point of my position - The gov't doesn't give "rights" and thus shouldn't be in the business of codifying "marriage" in the first place.

Again, you are fighting against what doesn't exist in my position or thinking. Removing the gov't is the only way for people to be free of the gov't on this issue.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Cad's just using the old tactic of doing nothing by feigning wanting to do something different. He has no intention of doing anything different, he just is trying to prevent something from changing.

The same tactic used by Republicans regarding HealthCare or GW/GCC legislation. No need to actually do anything, just maintain the status quo.

lol, ofcourse you think that - you are so constantly wrong you just couldn't help yourself on this one. I seriously would love for the gov't to get out of the "marriage" business.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Funny then that you believe the answer to government restricting homosexuals peoples rights is to create additional legislation, rather than simply stop regulating marriage completely.

I'm not sure why CAD is bothering to argue with you morons. You howling monkeys that make up the fecal flinging left wing of this forum is so epically devoid of intelligence that he has no chance of having any kind of logical conversation.

I haven't had this much fun in a while, been very busy with work and don't have the time to post much any more. It's always great fun to see leftists get all worked up over issues they can only defend with emotion and slander. It's like they purposely turn off the "logic" switch and go into gnash mode.

 

[Phokus]

I haven't had this much fun in a while, been very busy with work and don't have the time to post much any more. It's always great fun to see leftists get all worked up over issues they can only defend with emotion and slander. It's like they purposely turn off the "logic" switch and go into gnash mode.

It's cute how a guy who worships Mr. Deficit himself, Ronald Reagan, but probably bitches about the current deficit at the same time is aligned with an idiot who purposely stays on unemployment.

 

[Scotteq]

Have they done this? Seems to me that's what the Republicans have been trying to do ever since the issue of Gay Marriage first came onto the scene.

Then there's who is opposing Gay Marriage. Strangely it seems to be Religion making all the fuss, not Government.

Religion is making the fuss because they don't want the existing laws to change. I checked, and NJ definitely specifies "Opposite Sex".

I think this is an area where liberals, libertarians, and small government types all have an opportunity to agree on something: Scary Thought, huh?? 🙂

 

[sandorski]

Religion is making the fuss because they don't want the existing laws to change. I checked, and NJ definitely specifies "Opposite Sex".

I think this is an area where liberals, libertarians, and small government types all have an opportunity to agree on something: Scary Thought, huh?? 🙂

This was added in just recently(last decade, likely 2004/5 when every other State was tripping over itself to make sure Gays couldn't get Married), was it not?

 

[Brigandier]

This was added in just recently(last decade, likely 2004/5 when every other State was tripping over itself to make sure Gays couldn't get Married), was it not?

What's opposite sex? Anandtech?

 

[JSt0rm]

I haven't had this much fun in a while,

Now thats just sad. :|

 

[shira]

I make perfect sense.

Gov't shouldn't be involved in the "marriage" business. They can be involved in contracts as they are for other things.
No, that does not mean I am for "same sex marriage".

There is no "right" of marriage. marriage is a religious entity that should stay there. The gov't has no business in the matter.

Great. So what you're advocating, then, is that rather than ADDING another marriage group that receives special marriage benefits from the government, which would "make government larger," government should instead REMOVE all special marriage benefits from heterosexual couples, which will make government smaller. Have I got that right?

 

[JSt0rm]

Great. So what you're advocating, then, is that rather than ADDING another marriage group that receives special marriage benefits from the government, which would "make government larger," government should instead REMOVE all special marriage benefits from heterosexual couples, which will make government smaller. Have I got that right?

Yup. Thats his "idea"

 

[Brigandier]

Great. So what you're advocating, then, is that rather than ADDING another marriage group that receives special marriage benefits from the government, which would "make government larger," government should instead REMOVE all special marriage benefits from heterosexual couples, which will make government smaller. Have I got that right?

Well, sure, the economic benefits of marriage are inherent in the institution. Two people pooling resources will always be stronger, and therefore more desirable.

 

[Moonbeam]

Funny then that you believe the answer to government restricting homosexuals peoples rights is to create additional legislation, rather than simply stop regulating marriage completely.

I'm not sure why CAD is bothering to argue with you morons. You howling monkeys that make up the fecal flinging left wing of this forum is so epically devoid of intelligence that he has no chance of having any kind of logical conversation.

Funny as in 'funny if you think like a moron'?

When government tried to outlaw interracial marriage this expansion of government regulation was shot down by the Supreme Court, not by additional legislation. The excessive use of government to limit marriage only to straights will go down the same way, by the court ruling it as an unconstitutional expansionist interference with fundamental rights. You fucktards always feel as if government interferes when the bigotry you thought was your right to practice is subtracted away. Spend some time at the morgue and see if you can find a better brain.

 

[Moonbeam]

Now thats just sad. :|

He has no humility and no organic shame and there are millions more just like him who hold up their stupidity as a badge of honor, who preen themselves that the stench of their being offends the noses of others. It's way beyond sad, it's deeply pathetic.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Your opinions are not shared by everyone.
My opinion? Civil partnerships are sufficient and make the union legal in the eyes of the law.

Let's go for a better solution then. Full separation of state and religion, and full equality in rights for people. Let the state only acknowledge a civil partnership as bond between 2 people, and let it no longer support a church marriage as legal partnership. That way all partnerships receive the same rights, and if people want to have an oldschool marriage they'll have to go knocking on the door of the local church themselves. That way the church can decide whether to 'marry' anyone, or discriminate in who they do or do not marry.

Oh, cut state funding for religious groups too while you're at it.

 

[Hacp]

Barbara Bush comes out in favor of licking the problem of marriage rights for all. I approve. :thumbsup:

As long as we get rid of the government subsidies for marriage, I'm all for it. I don't want this to cost the taxpayer MORE money. No more spending. No more taxes. For liberty!