Supreme Court and gay marriage

know1

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

2. The dumb-ass why can't three people be married if we let gay people be married? argument.

Because we don't let three people be married. OK... the best way to explain it is backwards...

- we cannot discriminate on the basis of gender.
- my spouse is a man
- so am I. And I have movies that prove that.
- The government should not be allowed to discriminate against us as a couple on the basis that our private genitalia aren't different. Because that's discrimination of the basis of gender.
- Since there is NO legal ground for a marriage of more than two people... that's a totally different issue than marriage equality based on my husband not having a vagina. If you want legal recognition for a three-party union... hire your own lawyer.

This is an extremely weak argument that has no merit. If not allowing gay people to marry is wrong, then not allowing threesomes who want to marry is just as wrong.

unsung

JimmyV wrote:

Wow. Just...wow. Blind ideology is an ugly thing.

Wow yourself. I'm sitting here saying that anyone that wants to be married to anyone else should be able to. I'm saying the federal government has no business telling anyone that they can't. Rights are not given by government. Rights are inherent. Anyone should have the right to marry the person that they choose.

Just exactly how is that blind ideology? Free men do not ask for permission to exercise a natural born right. My entire point is we are not free if we can't pick who we want to be married to. You don't seek permission.

Stop living on the idea that government grants you your rights.

JimmyV

unsung wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Wow. Just...wow. Blind ideology is an ugly thing.

Wow yourself. I'm sitting here saying that anyone that wants to be married to anyone else should be able to. I'm saying the federal government has no business telling anyone that they can't. Rights are not given by government. Rights are inherent. Anyone should have the right to marry the person that they choose.

Just exactly how is that blind ideology? Free men do not ask for permission to exercise a natural born right. My entire point is we are not free if we can't pick who we want to be married to. You don't seek permission.

Stop living on the idea that government grants you your rights.

No one is fighting (and they are fighting, not begging as you insulting insinuated last night) for the right to have a gay friendly reverend perform a marriage ceremony. They are fighting for that marriage to be legally recognized by the government. That you cannot see past your bizarre hatred of the government far enough to grasp that is indeed blind ideology.

Stop living on the idea that the government is out to get you at every turn. Of the people, for the people by the people...ALL of the people. Gays and "Constitutionalists" too.

JimmyV

Cannot help thinking that if Rand Paul's drunk son came out as gay then the attitude of some might change.

Prince Of Dorkness

know1 wrote:

This is an extremely weak argument that has no merit. If not allowing gay people to marry is wrong, then not allowing threesomes who want to marry is just as wrong.

Well... but it's not.
Sorry.

I know how hard it must be for you to accept that. Marriages are a mechanism for joining two people in a legal, civil contract. Writing that they have to be the same gender is gender discrimination. Changing the number of people is a totally different thing.

Now... why can't we have marriages with three people? Beats me. If people want to fight for it... fine... you go right ahead. I don't plan on stopping you. I might even agree with you.

But throwing those silly "let me ask you this...." change of subject answers isn't going to stop us.. change anything or make you look clever.

Prince Of Dorkness

unsung wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Wow. Just...wow. Blind ideology is an ugly thing.

Wow yourself. I'm sitting here saying that anyone that wants to be married to anyone else should be able to.

well no... you're being a bit of a dick and characterizing the generations-long fight for equal recognition for our families as "begging the government for rights."

And then a minute later crying that the government isn't protecting you from a company that makes genetically modified wheat. :fp:

Apparently you on'y think it's OK to beg the government for protections when it's YOU that you want protected. Very libertarian.

unsung

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

well no... you're being a bit of a dick and characterizing the generations-long fight for equal recognition for our families as "begging the government for rights."

And then a minute later crying that the government isn't protecting you from a company that makes genetically modified wheat. :fp:

Apparently you on'y think it's OK to beg the government for protections when it's YOU that you want protected. Very libertarian.

I'll grant you that my choice of the word begging may not have been appropriate, and yes I believe the federal government meddles in the private lives of the citizens entirely too much. For the use of begging, I apologize, I did not intend on it to be argumentative. I should not have worded it that way, my anger for the all of bullshit has hit all-time highs.

I stand by my position that government does not grant rights and that one doesn't seek permission for rights.

But seriously, I'm the one being a dick??!!?? Pot meet kettle.

mikepegg44

POD, I fully understand your anger. I cannot truly empathize with it because the current exclusion from marriage contracts doesn't currently prohibit me from using them. I hate that people like yourself and your partner are treated like second class citizens.

People should not be prohibited by gov't to join into a contract other then when one party is mentally incapable of making the decision or under fear of harm. So if the gov't is going to allow privileges to occur based on the marriage contract, anyone should be able to get one with other consenting adults. if you want to limit it to one person I suppose that is fine, but I would hesitate to disallow multiple marriage contracts if all parties are willing participants that meet the criteria of being human.

I supported Ron Paul and I do not believe I am the only one entitled to rights by the way. I really wish you would stop misrepresenting what a libertarian believes, either you do it on purpose (which is the one I believe simply because you seem too intelligent to not understand it and you like to stir pots) or you need to read more about libertarian philosophy. Don't just assume we are all Idaho militia members who want to succeed from the union. that isn't libertarian. Libertarians support your cause, just differently.

“Once you've had straight marriage, you have to have gay marriage,” said Jillette. “And the slippery slope they talk about. Like, oh, what if they want to do polygamy and they want to do this. I think that's all terrific. I'm all in favor of the slippery slope. I think love is a good thing and commitment is a good thing. People should be able to make any sort of life commitment to anybody they want.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... GomedbMcoY

doesn't seem like the Libertarian philosophy you like to paint with broad strokes

maybe read the platform to get an idea of what it is to be a libertarian.

http://www.lp.org/platform

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.


or you can go on believing that Libertarians want you to remain single and toiling in the salt mines with the rest of the population, whichever is easier

polaris_x

the thing with the libertarian approach is that I think it appeals to people who ultimately want to free will to make their own decisions ... there's a lot of ambiguity in the language and when push comes to shove - many libertarians resort to some fundamental talking point ... look at ron paul ... dude will say that he wants marriage not related to gov't and all that but when push comes to shove ... if he had a vote on prop 8 ... he would vote to ban it ...

from:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/201 ... ml?start=3

Along those lines with marriage, if you were on the state level for something like Proposition 8, would you vote for or against?

Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

Bentleyspop

unsung wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

well no... you're being a bit of a dick and characterizing the generations-long fight for equal recognition for our families as "begging the government for rights."

And then a minute later crying that the government isn't protecting you from a company that makes genetically modified wheat. :fp:

Apparently you on'y think it's OK to beg the government for protections when it's YOU that you want protected. Very libertarian.

I'll grant you that my choice of the word begging may not have been appropriate, and yes I believe the federal government meddles in the private lives of the citizens entirely too much. For the use of begging, I apologize, I did not intend on it to be argumentative. I should not have worded it that way, my anger for the all of bullshit has hit all-time highs.

I stand by my position that government does not grant rights and that one doesn't seek permission for rights.

But seriously, I'm the one being a dick??!!?? Pot meet kettle.

So you're against the federal government getting involved in the gay marriage issue.....

Are you okay with the individual states making it legal for gay marriage?
And how do you honestly feel about DOMA?

Prince Of Dorkness

unsung wrote:

I'll grant you that my choice of the word begging may not have been appropriate, and yes I believe the federal government meddles in the private lives of the citizens entirely too much. For the use of begging, I apologize, I did not intend on it to be argumentative. I should not have worded it that way, my anger for the all of bullshit has hit all-time highs.

Pretty much my life since about 1987. so I can relate.

I stand by my position that government does not grant rights and that one doesn't seek permission for rights.

While that may be the case in a text book or some nebulous ideal... the fact is that it's the government that grants me ACCESS to those rights. I can parade through the streets and say I'm equal all I want. But they can still deport my husband and they can still tell me that I don't own the car that's in his name... even if I paid for it.

They can also tell me that he's not my husband and that I can't be with him when he dies or collect his social security survivor benefits. Because one of us didn't have a vagina. So I'm not sure what you expect me to do... should I just crank call people in the middle of the night until I get that... go to the supreme court?

Or just... accept it and not "beg" for the recognition of those rights. I'm not quite sure what you think I should do there.

But seriously, I'm the one being a dick??!!?? Pot meet kettle.

Sorry. But yeah. You are. You got a better word for telling me I'm "begging the government for rights?"

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

the thing with the libertarian approach is that I think it appeals to people who ultimately want to free will to make their own decisions ... there's a lot of ambiguity in the language and when push comes to shove - many libertarians resort to some fundamental talking point ... look at ron paul ... dude will say that he wants marriage not related to gov't and all that but when push comes to shove ... if he had a vote on prop 8 ... he would vote to ban it ...

from:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/201 ... ml?start=3

Along those lines with marriage, if you were on the state level for something like Proposition 8, would you vote for or against?

Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

not to derail, and some might think this is nitpicking but knowing Ron Paul that isn't a vote in support of Prop 8. I guess it is all how you look at it. He didn't say he was against it I know, but he didn't say he was for it and he stated his position nurmerous times that gov't should not be involved in marriage. There was no yes or no in that sentence and he is generally very careful in his word choices

Prince Of Dorkness

mikepegg44 wrote:

I supported Ron Paul and I do not believe I am the only one entitled to rights by the way. I really wish you would stop misrepresenting what a libertarian believes, either you do it on purpose (which is the one I believe simply because you seem too intelligent to not understand it and you like to stir pots) or you need to read more about libertarian philosophy. Don't just assume we are all Idaho militia members who want to succeed from the union. that isn't libertarian. Libertarians support your cause, just differently.

to be totally honest... my opinion of libertarians from the many posts I've seen hear and the bleating screeds of people like Ron and Rand have shown me that they're generally a bunch of self-centered, narcissistic, selfish cry babies who want everyone to jump to their defense and protect them but don't ever want to lift a finger to help anyone else. They want to be able to fuck over anyone and everything for their own gain.

Even if they have nothing to gain, they'll get a kick out of sitting atop their own little ivory tower, saying they choose to do nothing because it's not their job. They're the kind of person who would run over a child and argue that they didn't feel it was the government's place to tell them to step on the brake. And I honestly think that most of them would get a kick out of doing that if they wouldn't go to jail for doing it. Do you really think that Unsung wouldn't secretly enjoy doing that? Because I'm positive he would.

But the moment that the government doesn't race to wipe their asses... well THEN there's hell to pay.

I've always pictured libertarians like Veruca Salt from the Willy Wonka movie. Screaming and crying endlessly about what she wants... making a huge stink when she isn't allow to do or have whatever she wants. And the moment that people don't fall all over themselves to hand it to her on a silver platter... That's when the shit hits the fan.

And yeah... I'm sure that the writings of some long-dead libertarian philosophy might say different. Well cool. But i'm talking about the actual people who call themselves libertarians and I think they're a bunch of spoiled brats who need a good kick in the pants.

justam

Cosmo wrote:

justam wrote:

I wonder if that's not a hidden reason why there's such resistance to marriage equality? We see the religious objections openly but, perhaps there are business meetings behind closed doors too?! It would certainly cost businesses more to insure people and give them benefits...

:geek:

...
You're right. We don't know all of the factors. But, we do know that those businesses, such as insurance companies, will remain publicly silent in order to avoid the bad press.

Yes

JimmyV

mikepegg44 wrote:

POD, I fully understand your anger. I cannot truly empathize with it because the current exclusion from marriage contracts doesn't currently prohibit me from using them. I hate that people like yourself and your partner are treated like second class citizens.

People should not be prohibited by gov't to join into a contract other then when one party is mentally incapable of making the decision or under fear of harm. So if the gov't is going to allow privileges to occur based on the marriage contract, anyone should be able to get one with other consenting adults. if you want to limit it to one person I suppose that is fine, but I would hesitate to disallow multiple marriage contracts if all parties are willing participants that meet the criteria of being human.

I supported Ron Paul and I do not believe I am the only one entitled to rights by the way. I really wish you would stop misrepresenting what a libertarian believes, either you do it on purpose (which is the one I believe simply because you seem too intelligent to not understand it and you like to stir pots) or you need to read more about libertarian philosophy. Don't just assume we are all Idaho militia members who want to succeed from the union. that isn't libertarian. Libertarians support your cause, just differently.

“Once you've had straight marriage, you have to have gay marriage,” said Jillette. “And the slippery slope they talk about. Like, oh, what if they want to do polygamy and they want to do this. I think that's all terrific. I'm all in favor of the slippery slope. I think love is a good thing and commitment is a good thing. People should be able to make any sort of life commitment to anybody they want.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... GomedbMcoY

doesn't seem like the Libertarian philosophy you like to paint with broad strokes

maybe read the platform to get an idea of what it is to be a libertarian.

http://www.lp.org/platform

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.


or you can go on believing that Libertarians want you to remain single and toiling in the salt mines with the rest of the population, whichever is easier

Penn Jillette does seem to be a better spokesperson for the ideals of Libertarianism than does either of the Pauls.

justam

Let's break this whole argument down to the barest facts.

There is a certain portion of our population that prefers the same sex. They would like to marry an individual of the same sex. These are adults who live and work and belong to families just like heterosexual people. They are being discriminated against because they are not allowed to get married to the people they want to. Merely because the person they want to marry is NOT of the opposite sex.

That's why this is an issue of fairness. Not an issue of polygamy or of marrying farm animals or of some kind of perversion. It's insulting when people trivialize this drive towards equal rights with garbage like that!

The resistance to change seems only about exclusion and fear and probably greed buried somewhere beneath it all. The COST of changing the system.

It needs to change so that all adults can marry the individual they want.

know1

justam wrote:

It needs to change so that all adults can marry the individual they want.

I can only hope it will be changed to this!

justam

know1 wrote:

justam wrote:

It needs to change so that all adults can marry the individual they want.

I can only hope it will be changed to this!

Prince Of Dorkness

mikepegg44 wrote:

He didn't say he was against it I know, but he didn't say he was for it and he stated his position nurmerous times that gov't should not be involved in marriage. There was no yes or no in that sentence and he is generally very careful in his word choices

And this proves my point. Because while Ron Paul doesn't think the government should be involved in marriage... he's in a government-recognized marriage. Because there's something in it for him. Married couples pay lower taxes and they get protections and benefits and he wanted that.

So out the window with his theoretical bullshit position.. no no... when there's something in it for Ron Paul... well Ron Paul is there holding out his hand. When there isn't something in it for Ron Paul... Well Ron Paul doesn't think that the government should be involved.

Thanks for illustrating how narcissistic and selfish libertarians are, regardless of their ideals written down in ancient scrolls.

Prince Of Dorkness

mikepegg44 wrote:

or you can go on believing that Libertarians want you to remain single and toiling in the salt mines with the rest of the population, whichever is easier

Um... not to kick you yet again... but Libertarians are against minimum wages and any kind of worker protections... so it's probably libertarians who would be the ones owning and operating the salt mines.



I'm just saying.