What will be the next Great Progressive Cause™ now that same-sex marriage is common?

[jackstar7]

Food will be the next cause. An extension of the health agenda.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Care to say the same thing towards other religions? Or are you just an internet tough guy who is too much of a coward?

I'm not a fan of Islamic Fundamentalism and even Jewish Fundamentalism either. However, neither of those two religions have much sway in this country and they're not at the forefront of trying to outlaw abortion, birth control, premarital sex, and gay marriage in the United States.

 

[RabidMongoose]

We can always improve as a society. That is the purpose of progressiveness. To that end, it will combat the conservatism of the future.

 

[Thebobo]

yes but change is scary!

 

[nehalem256]

Government has defined what marriage is for like ever. Question is, since the government has monopoly on issuing the licenses, whether it can do so in an arbitrary, capricious manner.

We're talking about civil marriage, I suppose? No one stops anyone from going into one's church and getting married (that has no legal effect in real life)

Limiting marriage to heterosexuals is not arbitrary.

How can you hope to be taken seriously saying things like that...

If two consenting adults wish to marry(legally), they should be able to. End of story.

So basically you are proving my point. You are bigoted against all sexual minorities except gays.

 

[yllus]

I'd love to see German-style worker representation on corporation boards be the next plank.

 

[michal1980]

Government has defined what marriage is for like ever. Question is, since the government has monopoly on issuing the licenses, whether it can do so in an arbitrary, capricious manner.

We're talking about civil marriage, I suppose? No one stops anyone from going into one's church and getting married (that has no legal effect in real life)

As long as government doesn't violate some constitutional right, it can make arbitrary laws.

Progressives, just don't like the fact that so far they couldn't get a gay marriage law on the books.

Over time, that will probably change, but it shouldn't happen through the courts.

Also, whatever the new definition of legal marriage is, will be just as arbitrary as the one today.

By the same logic they use, polygamy should be legal. But I see no one on the left fighting for those peoples rights.

 

[boomerang]

Whatever it is, it will be for our own good. 😉

 

[Thump553]

Getting the allegedly small government, so-called conservatives to stop legislating their view of a moral code upon the rest of us.

 

[soulcougher73]

Yep. Liberals are actually the biggest hypocrites when it comes to marriage. They claim you cannot discriminate against sexual minorities when it comes to who can marry, but yet when it comes to extending it to things like object-sexual marriage they throw a big fit and claim "that's not marriage".

Legal consent mother fucker. Look it up. Jesus christ you and stupid object sex thing.

Edit: This all pertains to the eyes of the law. If you want to hold a private ceremony with yoru strange friends and marry your toaster. Have at it. You can even walk around and tell others about it if youd like.

 

[nehalem256]

Getting the allegedly small government, so-called conservatives to stop legislating their view of a moral code upon the rest of us.

Wasn't DOMA signed in to law by Bill Clinton, a Democrat?

 

[soulcougher73]

So basically you are proving my point. You are bigoted against all sexual minorities except gays.

Because gays are 2 consenting adults which are what is required to make a legal contract such as this. 1 consenting adult and a worn out toaster does not meet the above criteria when it comes to legality.

 

[Zstream]

Getting the allegedly small government, so-called conservatives to stop legislating their view of a moral code upon the rest of us.

Maybe you should stop spreading your moral code upon the rest of us? LOL get a grip on reality. Society is becoming trash and its mainly the "progressives" fault (aka liberals).

 

[nehalem256]

Legal consent mother fucker. Look it up. Jesus christ you and stupid object sex thing.

Man and a woman mother fucker. Look it up. Jesus Christ you and your stupid gay marriage thing.

Also: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2309111

Canada apparently has no problem essentially marrying couples without the consent of either person in the relationship. At least toaster-human marriage requires the consent of one person 😉

Double Also:

Don't forget marriage to women seized in war, forced marriage between slaves, biblical polygamy, etc. Etc.

Looks to me like consent is not a fundamental part of marriage. Now, I think the state can show a compelling reason for why you cannot marry another person without their consent. However, no such compelling reason exists for a person marrying an object or animal. Your bigotry against such relationships does not constitute a compelling reason.

Edit: This all pertains to the eyes of the law. If you want to hold a private ceremony with yoru strange friends and marry your toaster. Have at it. You can even walk around and tell others about it if youd like.

This all pertains to the eyes of the law. If you want to hold a private ceremony with your gay friends and marry your same-sex lover. Have at it. You can even walk around and tell others about it if youd like.

 

[nehalem256]

Because gays are 2 consenting adults which are what is required to make a legal contract such as this. 1 consenting adult and a worn out toaster does not meet the above criteria when it comes to legality.

Marriage is not a legal contract between 2 parties. It is a contract between 3.

You, your spouse, and the government.

So a marriage between you and a toaster would still have 2 parties which unquestionably can sign a contract. So there is not problem. Except your bigotry against sexual minorities you don't like.

 

[soulcougher73]

Man and a woman mother fucker. Look it up. Jesus Christ you and your stupid gay marriage thing.

Also: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2309111

Canada apparently has no problem essentially marrying couples without the consent of either person in the relationship. At least toaster-human marriage requires the consent of one person 😉

Double Also:


Looks to me like consent is not a fundamental part of marriage. Now, I think the state can show a compelling reason for why you cannot marry another person without their consent. However, no such compelling reason exists for a person marrying an object or animal. Your bigotry against such relationships does not constitute a compelling reason.



This all pertains to the eyes of the law. If you want to hold a private ceremony with your gay friends and marry your same-sex lover. Have at it. You can even walk around and tell others about it if youd like.

"Mr. Nehalem256, what you've just said ... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul..."

 

[soulcougher73]

Marriage is not a legal contract between 2 parties. It is a contract between 3.

You, your spouse, and the government.

So a marriage between you and a toaster would still have 2 parties which unquestionably can sign a contract. So there is not problem. Except your bigotry against sexual minorities you don't like.

Well, if that is how you are goign to look at it then i mispoke. It requires 3 parties. Still nullifies you and your beloved toaster though. So sorry..

 

[nehalem256]

Well, if that is how you are goign to look at it then i mispoke. It requires 3 parties. Still nullifies you and your beloved toaster though. So sorry..

It only requires 3 parties because you are a bigot.

Your logic is absolutely no different than the people that say marriage requires a man and a woman. I mean except for the fact the millenia of history that agree with the man-woman definition of marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

"Mr. Nehalem256, what you've just said ... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul..."

Funny that half of what I said was verbatim what you said with a few obvious word replacements... :hmm:

 

[jackstar7]

Wasn't DOMA signed in to law by Bill Clinton, a Democrat?

Are you calling Bill Clinton a progressive?

 

[brandonb]

We can always improve as a society. That is the purpose of progressiveness. To that end, it will combat the conservatism of the future.

Improve is subjective. What you consider an improvement may not be to me. I have not seen any improvement in anything in the last 20 years. Have you?

 

[nehalem256]

Are you calling Bill Clinton a progressive?

Are you calling him a member of the Christian Taliban

 

[jackstar7]

Are you calling him a member of the Christian Taliban

I always forget how direct questions are your kryptonite.

 

[nehalem256]

I always forget how direct questions are your kryptonite.

Lets put it this way "HillaryCare". Basically the progressive wetdream. Sounds like a progressive to me.

 

[jackstar7]

Lets put it this way "HillaryCare". Basically the progressive wetdream. Sounds like a progressive to me.

Thank you for clearly demonstrating how little effort you put into thinking.