Santorum backs nullifying existing gay marriages

[shira]

You are starting to use your brain. Very good beginning. Do continue, I think you may be understanding.



Irrelevant. They most likely would use a different defintion of the term, like you did before you started to wise up and started to realize many words have more than one meaning. Hint, it is why there are numbers underneath the words in the dictionary...



Untrue, you grasp of English is simply too poor to understand the phrases in use.



Tolerate works as well as accept. These same laws also force people to accept something that they would otherwise not accept.



Sure thing:


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accept?s=t

It must really suck to be you. Making a habit out of trying to act intelligent but failing. Maybe you take pleasure in it. You should always take pleasure in something you are good at, and failure is your forte.

Once more you've failed to grasp an argument. There are at least 10 meanings for the word "accept," yet you insist that one, extremely strained interpretation of the word is EXACTLY what "accept" means. Let's all ignore the other 9 meanings and let's all try really hard to forget that you're forcing a square meaning into the round hole of a word.

Yet tolerate provides EXACTLY the required meaning. It connotes EXACTLY what anti-gay bigots feel they're forced into doing when society makes laws protecting gays. But Cybrsage - the great know-nothing of the English language - proclaims that "accept" is the correct word.

Don't even try to squirm out of this one. You're completely wrong.

Edit: And it's complete obvious why you insist on "accept." You must hold up this invented structure that the state is somehow forcing people to like something. The evil, manipulative state that's forcing people to agree. But it's clear that no one is forced into doing those things. In their own minds, the anti-gays are thinking "I hate them. I reject them. I reject all of the arguments, and I think this law is absurd." Their frame of mind is what it was before the law and after the law. The ONLY thing forced on them is that they know they can go only so far in their unfair treatment of gays. They are forced to tolerate, not to accept.

 

[zsdersw]

I wasn't trying to browbeat you over it. It's fine to have an opinion either way. I was just puzzled that someone would let their personal opinion be determined by the status of a legal point that is still basically up in the air. (It was my impression that when you said you don't see any contradiction or double standard that you were expressing your opinion on the fundamental issue rather than stating a legal technicality. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Legal technicality.

 

[pauldun170]

Your interpretation is faulty. I don't think any state has the right to discriminate against homosexuals, but not because of anything at the federal level... but because of their own constitutions.

I'll just leave this right here...

:whiste:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[zsdersw]

Incorrect - I have not given you any reason to make that assumption.
I only said that its beyond scope and I we already covered how the sexual preference is irrelevant.
Shame on you. (shakes finger)

Yes you have...

"The benefit to society to recognize marriage is two create an environment that creates new tax payers (aka children)
All the other bs is just "thought of the day..emotional driven BS...a new excuse to drive whatever point that is trying to be made so that an internet argument can be had"

Since homosexual relationships do not have the same degree of "creating new tax payers", it would suggest that you do not think homosexual relationships have any benefit to society that's worth considering.

Oh good...I was starting to get butterflies in my stomach.
PHEW!!!

Doubtful. My sarcasm meter is not broken.

 

[zsdersw]

I'll just leave this right here...

:whiste:

Yeah, and that's precisely why their existing constitutions don't allow the discrimination; because they were crafted around compliance with the US constitution. In other words, it doesn't need to go beyond each state.

 

[a777pilot]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/03/MN3Q1N9EV9.DTL&tsp=1



But oh, I forgot... social conservatives would never try to impose their will via government. /sarcasm

Mr. Santorum, without due respect, you can take your idiotic views and shove them up your ass. I would rather die than live under your interpretation of the Bible.

Great idea. Words, such as, "marriage" have meaning or they mean nothing.

Two men, two women cannot be married. Get over it. Why not just back the legal idea of a civil union, i.e., a partnership.

 

[zsdersw]

Great idea. Words, such as, "marriage" have meaning or they mean nothing.

Two men, two women cannot be married. Get over it. Why not just back the legal idea of a civil union, i.e., a partnership.

Your lack of reading is well documented, as you chose to quote the OP instead of showing that you've read the rest of the thread. "Marriage" is presently the term used in law and government. Until/unless that changes, it should be legal "marriage" for everyone or legal "marriage" for no one.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

What is done is done, but we can fix it by removing government from marriage altogether without losing the legal framework of the union....

No need to do so. The government forcing a change in a religious institution is already enough....

I understand the common person will still use the word marriage to refer to the union, and that is fine with me. I simply do not want the government to force a change in a religious institution...it is not its place to do so.

Civil Unions will be the legal framework. If a religion allows gay marriage, then the couple can be married there and also have their legal civil union. Everyone wins.

Who is forcing religious institutions to do anything? Churches have the right to NOT marry people, and a marriage isn't legal if it's done only through a church without obtaining a valid marriage license from the government. You seem to be making the argument that if gay marriage is called marriage, the gays are going to storm their local Catholic Church and demand weddings. The Church will still have the option to refuse to perform the service; they don't even need to provide a reason. The fact that marriage would still be LEGALLY available to the gay couple is enough; no need to force anyone to do anything that they find objectionable within the context of their religion. So I'm curious why you mention people being forced or religious texts needing to be rewritten. Were all the Bibles in America rewritten when slavery was ended or miscegenation laws repealed? Of course not, that's just ludicrous... so why would gay marriage be any different?

I just don't see the logic behind changing the wording for everyone to "civil union" when "marriage" has already been used for centuries, is already peppered throughout the language of our laws, and apparently is what everyone is going to call it anyway. What, do the gays have to put up little air quotes every time they mention that they're "married?" Would people still use words like "husband," "wife," or "spouse," or would everyone be "my civil partner?" If you already acknowledge that everyone is going to call it marriage regardless of what term the government uses, why go through the hassle of changing any and all legislation which refers to marriage? Can you accept that allowing gays to marry won't force churches to completely restructure their religions around it?

 

[pauldun170]

Yes you have...

"The benefit to society to recognize marriage is two create an environment that creates new tax payers (aka children)
All the other bs is just "thought of the day..emotional driven BS...a new excuse to drive whatever point that is trying to be made so that an internet argument can be had"

Since homosexual relationships do not have the same degree of "creating new tax payers", it would suggest that you do not think homosexual relationships have any benefit to society that's worth considering.



Doubtful. My sarcasm meter is not broken.

Page 2 of this thread.
Since you are arguing with me I guess you are against gay marriage.

Man + Woman screwing and making babies under a framework that encourages the man and women to stay together and form a stable environment for the next generation of baby makers is beneficial to society. Its pretty much the building block of any society. The whole point is Marriage is just that.

That's just the cold hard facts of how societies are built. It can be said that it is in societies interest to promote this "contract" between man and woman to screw, make babies and raise those babies to be productive members of society. Society doesn't and really shouldn't give two shits about how much you love each other or how you feel deep in your soul that your are meant to be with someone else.
Doesn't matter. What matters is "make new productive member of society to take your tax paying ass's spot when you die".

Having said that, we live in a country where everyone is by law entitled to equal protection under the law. Yes it is in societies interest to promote baby making but to deny one group the rights and privileges afforded to another is Constitutionally wrong.

Its in society's interest to promote baby making\child rearing.
Once the kid is out there, Society should be concerned with promoting the stable environment for that child. Traditionally, culturally we saw that as man+women because that s what it takes to create the kid. However like a lot traditions it no longer serves a unique and irreplaceable function in our society.
I cant see one valid argument as to why Federal government needs restrict the legal protections to a subset of citizens.
I'm in the camp that everyone should be afforded equal protection and therefore the gender of the two individuals in a marital contract is irrelevant to state and federal government. Governments interest should be restricted to the promotion of child rearing function that Marriage serves. That promotion being limited to the existing legal perks provided today under current marriage laws. Dude+Dude or woman + woman cant make a kid, but they are certainly capable of providing for one (plus techically with invitro\donors\adoption\ whatever there is the capabilty to create new).

I do not support anyones persistent whining about how much they love each other or gossip about stupid shows on Bravo or bullshit chatter about how so and so is so brave for coming out of the closet. Generally I think your annoying twit if you try and drag me into your little whatever you want to call it.

I do support constitutional rights.

 

[OutHouse]

and people say paul is a nut job? at least he would leave people the fuck alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84

 

[pauldun170]

Yeah, and that's precisely why their existing constitutions don't allow the discrimination; because they were crafted around compliance with the US constitution. In other words, it doesn't need to go beyond each state.

BAH!!
Legal technicality.

 

[silverpig]

And really, it is that simple. The common person will still call civil unions marriages, but as long as the government does not, the issue will die down and go away. The problem is with religous freedom in the US vs Government intrusion into it. Since marriage was a religious institution in the US prior to the government creating a legal framework which mirrored it and then named it the same, we have a problem.

The easy and smart fix is to simply rename the legal framework of marriage as civil union. New civil unions can be created at will without any of the problems of redefining a word which was first used in religion (in the US). Everyone wins except those who demand the use of the word marriage in legal forms - but they are simply wanting to cause hate and outrage and should be ignored.

Did marriage laws not exist at the time the US was formed? If so, the institution of marriage was enshrined in the US at the same time the US was created.

Marriage may pre-date the US, but marriage in the US is as old as the US.

 

[zsdersw]

Page 2 of this thread.
Since you are arguing with me I guess you are against gay marriage.

"Dude+Dude or woman + woman cant make a kid, but they are certainly capable of providing for one (plus techically with invitro\donors\adoption\ whatever there is the capabilty to create new)"

These things can be done without a marriage, in either homo- or hetero-sexual relationships... so it's not really an example of what you think it is.

 

[pauldun170]

"Dude+Dude or woman + woman cant make a kid, but they are certainly capable of providing for one (plus techically with invitro\donors\adoption\ whatever there is the capabilty to create new)"

These things can be done without a marriage, in either homo- or hetero-sexual relationships... so it's not really an example of what you think it is.

You can avoid STD's, be productive and stay outta jail without marriage as well.

So you are against marriage and there is no benefit to society in recognizing such social contracts.

Cheers

 

[zsdersw]

You can avoid STD's, be productive and stay outta jail without marriage as well.

Yes, but marriage makes those things more likely to occur.

So you are against marriage and there is no benefit to society in recognizing such social contracts.

No. I'm saying there are benefits to society other than those primarily the domain of heterosexual relationships that should be recognized by government and law under the term "marriage" or "civil union".

 

[pauldun170]

Yes, but marriage makes those things more likely to occur.

That can be debated\discussed\yapped about for hours. Just like my child rearing benefit.

Neither is necessarily BS...unless playing by internet rules.

No. I'm saying there are benefits to society other than those primarily the domain of heterosexual relationships that should be recognized by government and law under the term "marriage" or "civil union".

I'm saying relationships recognized by government and law under the term "marriage" or "civil union" should be irrespective of sexual orientation.

I'm also saying that as opposed to those who say "get rid of all of it", I believe that it is in society's interest to continue to recognize social contracts currently known as marriage because such arrangements are beneficial. The benefit I listed form the foundation of any society.
Two parents raising a child. Traditionally that has been man and women.
I have already stated my thought on tradition.


In summary, your panties are in a bunch over nothing.
Bet if you reach up there...you'll find your sarcasm meter.

 

[zsdersw]

I'm saying relationships recognized by government and law under the term "marriage" or "civil union" should be irrespective of sexual orientation.

I'm also saying that as opposed to those who say "get rid of all of it", I believe that it is in society's interest to continue to recognize social contracts currently known as marriage because such arrangements are beneficial. The benefit I listed form the foundation of any society.
Two parents raising a child. Traditionally that has been man and women.
I have already stated my thought on tradition.


In summary, your panties are in a bunch over nothing.
Bet if you reach up there...you'll find your sarcasm meter.

No more than your panties are in a bunch. I've been responding to your posts in the same tone as you've been responding to mine. So either we both have our panties in a bunch or we both don't.

 

[woolfe9999]

Sanotrum is right about one point: Having states define marriage can't work - at least not when there are substantial differences in the fundamental structure. It's one thing to have legal procedures vary, and documentation requirements differ, but fundamental differences between marriage defintions across state lines can't last long. It is politically unsustainable.

Of course he is wrong about how best to resolve the problem...

It's inevitable that marriage will have one federal definition and 50 state definitions in this federal system. For example, there are state benefits applicable to marriage as well as federal benefits, also state laws governing division of assets and child custody upon divorce. In order for those state laws to apply, the state must be able to define the conditions under which they would apply, i.e. when there is or isn't a legal marriage. That has to be case unless we want all such rules to be a function of the federal government, in which case we now have federal divorce court.

If what you're saying is that states will have to rely on a federal definition of marriage before they then apply their own particular rules for division of assets etc., I doubt you will see that come to pass. Even as someone with a relatively expansionist interpretation of the Commerce Clause, I'm not so sure the federal government can constitutionally define marriage for purposes other than the applicability of federal benefits. It's ironic that Santorum thinks the healthcare mandate is unconstitutional but thinks the federal government can define marriage for the states.

OTOH, if what you're really saying is that it's politically unsustainable to have some states recognize gay marriage and other states (plus the fed) not recognize it, I'm still not sure I agree. Eventually it will be uniformally recognized, but that will be by organic process of shifting public opinion. The public opinion shift just in the last 8 years is torrential. There's even been a sizable shift in the past three. The present situation (defining marriage as man-woman only) won't be sustainable in the federal system or any states but the reddest ones by the end of this decade. Probably not anywhere by the end of the next.

 

[pauldun170]

No more than your panties are in a bunch. I've been responding to your posts in the same tone as you've been responding to mine. So either we both have our panties in a bunch or we both don't.

What do you mean "OUR" panties?
Get your own damn panties.

 

[zsdersw]

What do you mean "OUR" panties?
Get your own damn panties.

Then I never had any to get into a bunch.

 

[Jaskalas]

If this is a small part of the GOP, how is Santorum winning primaries? Fact is that the party if full of religious fascists who would be all to happy to put a Christian theocracy in place.

We need a new mainstream limited government party that actually represents the average voter, socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Nutters like Santorum basically give the election to the Democrats.

We need a new mainstream limited government party

I cast a vote to that effect in 2008 and I intend to do so again. I welcome everyone who believes limited government to join me. It is imperative that you cast a vote, for a third party, ANY third party I don't care which.

Those who sit at home in disgust are only hurting this nation. The two parties live on our apathy. Voting in opposition is the only message we can send. We have the numbers to make a difference, we just have to get them off the couch.

 

[a777pilot]

Your lack of reading is well documented, as you chose to quote the OP instead of showing that you've read the rest of the thread. "Marriage" is presently the term used in law and government. Until/unless that changes, it should be legal "marriage" for everyone or legal "marriage" for no one.

OK, then, if words really don't have meaning, I go for marriage for no one.

Next.

 

[a777pilot]

p.s., Being gay is nothing to be proud of, much like being heterosexual is nothing to be proud of either.

You are funny. I guess that is a good thing. Lord knows we need more laughter in this world.

 

[Jaskalas]

p.s., Being gay is nothing to be proud of, much like being heterosexual is nothing to be proud of either.

The minority stand 'proud' in an attempt to stand up for themselves against the assault of the majority. Saying they're not ashamed of themselves is a rebuttle of folks trying to shame / harm them.

 

[zsdersw]

p.s., Being gay is nothing to be proud of, much like being heterosexual is nothing to be proud of either.

You are funny. I guess that is a good thing. Lord knows we need more laughter in this world.

It's difficult to be proud of something so ordinary and common.