or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Unpleasant Truths: Reagan was for the Buffet Rule
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Unpleasant Truths: Reagan was for the Buffet Rule - Page 5  

post #161 of 226
Thread Starter 

You don't seem happy.  First chance your religion got after being oppressed for so many years was to go around oppressing other groups.  You don't seem happy.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #162 of 226

Your happiness is based on what others believe and you cannot be truly happy as long as I believe that it is wrong to have sexual relations outside of marriage and that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

It doesn't matter to you that I, as an individual, don't want to use government to force you to act and believe as I do. It's easier for you to associate me with others who have similar beliefs and have no problem using government in such a fashion.

 

Ironically, you have more in common with them than you think, as you would just as easily use government to force everyone else to act and believe as you do.

 

But there are some positive changes happening among the religious in this country.

 

Gay-rights advocates meet with LDS officials

 

We are slowly coming to the realization that when you give the government unjust power to dictate what one group of people can or cannot do, they can and will use that power on EVERYONE.

 

What you refuse to realize, BR, is that I - a Mormon - am really on your side. Maybe you don't want it to be true, but it is. I want government to leave you alone. I want the government to get out of the marriage business and stop categorizing people and treating them differently. Go ahead and enter into a contract with another man and call it marriage or whatever you want.

 

Just don't infringe upon my right to believe and act as I wish - and don't try to get the government to do it for you - and we can all be happy.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

post #163 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You don't seem happy.  First chance your religion got after being oppressed for so many years was to go around oppressing other groups.  You don't seem happy.

You seem suicidal and psychotic. I keep waiting to see what poor slob you've shot on the news for not turning their daughter's uterus over to your herd bidding.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #164 of 226

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

 

You're not paying attention. People who believe different things than BR or believe things he doesn't like are oppressing him and making his life miserable.

 

 

 

 

Good point.  :) 

 

 

Quote:

Your happiness is based on what others believe and you cannot be truly happy as long as I believe that it is wrong to have sexual relations outside of marriage and that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

It doesn't matter to you that I, as an individual, don't want to use government to force you to act and believe as I do. It's easier for you to associate me with others who have similar beliefs and have no problem using government in such a fashion.

 

Ironically, you have more in common with them than you think, as you would just as easily use government to force everyone else to act and believe as you do.

 

But there are some positive changes happening among the religious in this country.

 

Gay-rights advocates meet with LDS officials

 

We are slowly coming to the realization that when you give the government unjust power to dictate what one group of people can or cannot do, they can and will use that power on EVERYONE.

 

What you refuse to realize, BR, is that I - a Mormon - am really on your side. Maybe you don't want it to be true, but it is. I want government to leave you alone. I want the government to get out of the marriage business and stop categorizing people and treating them differently. Go ahead and enter into a contract with another man and call it marriage or whatever you want.

 

Just don't infringe upon my right to believe and act as I wish - and don't try to get the government to do it for you - and we can all be happy.

 

 

Beautifully put.  The issue is that BR, ironically, has a God complex!  No disagreement is permitted.  Do so, and you will be hit with a hailstorm of -isms.  Better yet, he'll advocate that the government FORCE you to believe as he does.  Stalin---eh, BR has spoken!  

 

 

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #165 of 226
Thread Starter 

Jazz, your church backed Prop 8 and halted marriage equality in California.  This was done after your church was persecuted for its marriage preferences (polygamy).  If true, it's good that your church is coming around.  I'll believe it when I see it.  They can get started by breaking that coalition with the Southern Baptists and pressure the Boy Scouts to change their policy toward accepting gays and atheists.  Actions speak louder than meetings.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #166 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Jazz, your church backed Prop 8 and halted marriage equality in California.  This was done after your church was persecuted for its marriage preferences (polygamy).  If true, it's good that your church is coming around.  I'll believe it when I see it.  They can get started by breaking that coalition with the Southern Baptists and pressure the Boy Scouts to change their policy toward accepting gays and atheists.  Actions speak louder than meetings.

If we get to use the exception to prove the rule, then your Twitter contemporaries are threatening to lynch people and burn down parts of Florida in riots over Trayvon Martin.

Will you speak out against it and demand Democratic and various ethnic leaders denounce it as well?

I'll believe it when I see it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #167 of 226

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Jazz, your church backed Prop 8 and halted marriage equality in California.  This was done after your church was persecuted for its marriage preferences (polygamy).  If true, it's good that your church is coming around.  I'll believe it when I see it.  They can get started by breaking that coalition with the Southern Baptists and pressure the Boy Scouts to change their policy toward accepting gays and atheists.  Actions speak louder than meetings.

 

We've discussed this ad nauseum, but I'll say again: Prop 8 was a response to judicial activism on the part of gay marriage advocates which circumvented the will of the people of the State of California. I'm not saying I agree with how things went down, I'm saying that's how it is. Claiming that Prop 8 was concocted out of thin air by my church with the sole intention of persecuting homosexuals is an outright lie on several levels.

 

Government has become so powerful that it's gotten to the point where groups of people are trying to gain power and influence over it to use it to their advantage at the expense of other groups of people. And groups that normally wouldn't be inclined to do so are forced to do so as a defensive measure - an "it's us or them" reaction.

 

If the government didn't have the power to tell you who you can and cannot marry and take property from some to give to others based on their marital status - if that decision were solely up to you and your own conscience without government interference, Prop 8 wouldn't exist and we would not be having this discussion.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

post #168 of 226
Thread Starter 

I said your church supported the campaign.  Don't put words in my mouth.  The end result was the same.  A vote for prop 8 was a vote for persecuting homosexuals, regardless of your reasoning.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #169 of 226

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I said your church supported the campaign.  Don't put words in my mouth.  The end result was the same.  A vote for prop 8 was a vote for persecuting homosexuals, regardless of your reasoning.

 

Alright, then. By your same logic, a vote for Obama is a vote for persecuting homosexuals, regardless of your reasoning.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

post #170 of 226
Thread Starter 

Prop 8 was about taking away rights.  I'm not happy with Obama's current, politically motivated stance, but he's not attempting to overturn marriage equality laws that have been established.  Your zinger fails.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #171 of 226

Prop 8 was a response to an attempt to legislate by judicial decree rather than through the constitutionally mandated legislative process.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

post #172 of 226
Thread Starter 

Yeah yeah yeah I get it.  How about you find a way to rebuke the decree without revoking people's rights?  Change the process for later but leave the result that is equitable.

 

You can mask the homophobia in whatever judicial language you like, but the point remains that the campaign was not posed as a rebuke for judicial process before.  I live in California.  I saw the ads.  They were about "traditional" family and "traditional" marriage and "keep marriage between one man and one woman."  I only heard the argument you present when weasels got backed into a corner and didn't want to be painted as homophobic.

 

Homophobia

 

 

 

 

 

Yup, those ads are ALL about judicial activism!  Bah, homophobic rants from religious bigots. 

 

Heh, I was not digging the forum changes until I found out I could post videos.  Whee!  This is awesome now.


Edited by BR - 4/24/12 at 12:24pm

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #173 of 226

And let the judiciary walk all over the other 2 branches of government? Let a few people in black robes have de facto rule of the State of California? You may not see a problem with that, but I do. You may like their current decree, but you may not like their next one. And by then there will be little you can do about it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

post #174 of 226
Thread Starter 

Nevermind begging the question that the judges did something wrong...but let's play your game for a second.

 

If a decree took away rights--sure, rebuke the judges and overturn the ruling.  Remove the judges from the bench, cancel the ruling.

 

If a decree diminished discrimination--rebuke the judges, keep the ruling.  Remove the judges from the bench, keep the ruling.

 

Marriage equality falls into the latter category.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #175 of 226

Well sure, you take a utilitarian approach: the ends justify the means. If power is abused but you agree with the outcome, then it's okay, right?

 

And if the outcome is okay, did the judges really do anything "wrong"? Why not just leave them there since they're doing such a good job "setting things right" without letting things get all tied up for years in cumbersome representative government.

 

The problem is that this establishes a precedent that cannot easily be reversed.  That power can and will be abused again, and the next time the outcome may not be desirable to you. Then when you want to remove the judges and overturn the ruling...you can't. You didn't do it before, why should you be able to now?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

post #176 of 226
Thread Starter 

A simple "did this ruling increase or decrease freedom" test invalidates many of your concerns.  Again, you are still begging the question that the judges didn't have the authority to make the decision they did.

 

Still, what YOU are arguing is not what the Yes on Prop 8 folks were arguing over the airwaves.  It was all about "defending traditional marriage" *cough* homophobia and bigotry *cough*.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #177 of 226

Right BR, you have to remember that when judges reduce people's rights, they're doing their job, and when they protect rights, IT'S OUTRAGEOUS LIBERAL ACTIVISM!!!

 

jazzguru, do you believe that the judges in this Prop 8 case ruled inappropriately? They ruled on basic constitutional protections, to protect people's constitutional rights against the tyranny of the majority, who wanted to single people out to remove their constitutional rights. It seems to me to be pretty foundational stuff for our constitutional system.

 

post #178 of 226
Thread Starter 

But, GAYS.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #179 of 226

 

BRussel, I believe the role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law in the name of the state.

 

The constitution is the law.

 

Prop 8 amended the State Constitution, clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It is now the constitutional law of the State of California.

 

Now I will be the first person to point out the inherent immorality of democracy: it is 51% of the people using the government to force the other 49% to do what they want. As you said, it is rule by the tyranny of the majority. But that is how the constitutional amendment process of the State of California works. That is how their system works.

 

If you're going to be mad at anyone, don't be mad at the people who voted for Prop 8, be mad at the system that allowed 52.4% of Californians to use the violence of the state to impose their will on the 47.76% of Californians who voted against it.

 

Yet as flawed as that system is, I don't think it's nearly as bad as a system where a few people in black robes can ultimately determine what is law and what is not, regardless of whether or not they have the consent of the governed.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

post #180 of 226
Thread Starter 

Marriage Inequality laws violate the 14th Amendment.  Your argument is invalid.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #181 of 226

The problem is that in the U.S., marriage is treated as both a private covenant and civil union.

 

This will not be resolved until we define marriage and civil unions as 2 separate things and get the government out of marriage.

 

In Brazil, if you want to get married, you do so in a church (or wherever). There is no government intervention in marriage. If you want your union to be recognized by the State you participate in a separate civil ceremony recognizing your union.

 

It should be the same here. Marriage and civil unions should be 2 distinct things. If you want to participate in a religious (or non-religious) ceremony signifying that you are entering into a private covenant of marriage, knock yourself out. Marry whoever or whatever you want as long as you are peaceful and you don't infringe upon the rights of others.

 

If you want the State to recognize your covenant, then State-sanctioned civil unions should enjoy equal protection under the law.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

post #182 of 226
Thread Starter 

That is one solution.  The other solution is religious folks stop crying that they don't get to enforce their morality on the rest of the populace.  You don't like that the government uses the word marriage?  Too fucking bad.  Marriage has a long history that is not exclusive to religion.  A secular government should not have to abstain from using that word because religious folks simultaneously stick their noses into other people's business and get all butthurt about what they see.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #183 of 226

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The problem is that in the U.S., marriage is treated as both a private covenant and civil union.

 

This will not be resolved until we define marriage and civil unions as 2 separate things and get the government out of marriage.

 

In Brazil, if you want to get married, you do so in a church (or wherever). There is no government intervention in marriage. If you want your union to be recognized by the State you participate in a separate civil ceremony recognizing your union.

 

It should be the same here. Marriage and civil unions should be 2 distinct things. If you want to participate in a religious (or non-religious) ceremony signifying that you are entering into a private covenant of marriage, knock yourself out. Marry whoever or whatever you want as long as you are peaceful and you don't infringe upon the rights of others.

 

If you want the State to recognize your covenant, then State-sanctioned civil unions should enjoy equal protection under the law.

 

Or go even further, get the state out of it altogether.

 

How about this: The separation of personal, private relationships and state.

 

 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

post #184 of 226

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The other solution is religious folks stop crying that they don't get to enforce their morality on the rest of the populace.

 

Quit pretending that you don't also wish to enforce your morality on the rest of the populace. It's hypocritical.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

post #185 of 226

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

 

Or go even further, get the state out of it altogether.

 

How about this: The separation of personal, private relationships and state.

 

 

 

That would be my preference, but I think making the distinction would at least be a step in the right direction.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

post #186 of 226
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

 

Quit pretending that you don't also wish to enforce your morality on the rest of the populace. It's hypocritical.

 

That's the classic "you're being intolerant of my intolerance" argument that holds very little water.  I don't personally want to marry a guy or two women or three guys and a woman.  But I'm also not going to enforce my preferences on them and say they can't.  You are the one enforcing your preferences because you are hung up on a word that you don't fucking own a monopoly to...and you just can't fucking get over it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #187 of 226

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Marriage Inequality laws violate the 14th Amendment.  Your argument is invalid.

 

 

That's ridiculous.  By your logic, any attempt to define marriage would violate the 14th Amendment, even if that definition was "A union between 1-10 people." 

 

 

 

Quote:
The other solution is religious folks stop crying that they don't get to enforce their morality on the rest of the populace.

 

Once again you ignore that many people oppose gay marriage on non-religous non-moral grounds.  

 

 

 

Quote:

 You don't like that the government uses the word marriage?  Too fucking bad.  Marriage has a long history that is not exclusive to religion. 

 

 

I don't know that I'm concerned about the government using the word marriage.  That said, while marriage's history may not be exclusively tied to religion, you cannot deny it is intricately intertwined with many faiths. 

 

 

 

Quote:

 You are the one enforcing your preferences because you are hung up on a word that you don't fucking own a monopoly to...and you just can't fucking get over it.

 

 

lol.gif  I love watching you and your intellectual bankruptcy make these arguments.  First there is the above...then there is this: 

 

 

 

Quote:
​ I don't personally want to marry a guy or two women or three guys and a woman.  But I'm also not going to enforce my preferences on them and say they can't.

 

Either government can define marriage, or it can't.  Pick one.   Oh...silly me, you believe this (thanks to Jazz for posting it).  

 

 If power is abused but you agree with the outcome, then it's okay.   © BR 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #188 of 226
Thread Starter 

By saying that anyone can get married, I'm enforcing my preferences on others?  That's like saying "not stamp collecting" is a hobby.  Ridiculous.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #189 of 226

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

That's the classic "you're being intolerant of my intolerance" argument that holds very little water.

 

That's the classic "you're too obtuse to recognize your own hypocrisy and how you like to force your 'morality' on others."

 

NOTE: I wasn't necessarily referring to this subject, but I'm almost certain it applies here too. Tell us why you think the government must be the one who "sanctions" or "recognizes" marriages (between men and men, men and women or women and women...whomever)?

 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

post #190 of 226
Thread Starter 

Except I'm not forcing morality on others by acknowledging MORE freedoms.  You are enforcing yours by restricting them.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #191 of 226

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Except I'm not forcing morality on others by acknowledging MORE freedoms.

 

I didn't say that you were. I noticed you didn't answer my question: Tell us why you think the government must be the one who "sanctions" or "recognizes" marriages (between men and men, men and women or women and women...whomever)?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You are enforcing yours by restricting them.

 

I'm not restricting anyone's freedom. If you think I am, please tell me how.

 

 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

post #192 of 226

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

By saying that anyone can get married, I'm enforcing my preferences on others?  That's like saying "not stamp collecting" is a hobby.  Ridiculous.

 

You're not saying "anyone" can get married.  You're saying you want the definition of marriage to be what you want it to be.  That in itself is fine, but you're then arguing that any other definition violates the 14th Amendment (presumably under the Equal Protection clause).   This is the issue, because if the government placing limits on marriage violates the 14th Amendment, then the government can't play any limits on marriage whatsoever.  Marriage can legally be anything anyone says.  If I want to marry 12 people, I can.  If I want to marry 60 guys and 3 women, I can. Right?  Can government define marriage?  Or can it only do so when you like the definition?  

 

What MJ and Jazz are saying is get the government out of defining "marriage" entirely.  Simply have the government recognize unions between 2 people.  There is plenty of non-religious rationale for this, including the complexity of allowing people to marry more than one person, the legal implications, etc.  Now understand, I'm not sure I support this approach...but at least it makes sense and is based upon intellectually honest principles.   

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

 

I didn't say that you were. I noticed you didn't answer my question: Tell us why you think the government must be the one who "sanctions" or "recognizes" marriages (between men and men, men and women or women and women...whomever)?

 

 

 

I'm not restricting anyone's freedom. If you think I am, please tell me how.

 

 

 

An excellent question.  It goes to the point above (the one you're making re: civil unions for all).  As for me, I'd prefer the current system with an added civil union component for non-traditional marriage (gay marriage).  It preserves everyone's legal rights and also protects the cultural and societal norm of "marriage."  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #193 of 226

I'm not sure how this thread got into gay marriage, but I think the debate here about the Prop 8 decision is a little bit off. The argument, as I understand it, is not that the US Constitution requires that gay marriage be legal. It's that when a state passes a law singling out one group to deny them rights, there has to be strict scrutiny of that law, which means there better be a really good reason for it. The Prop 8 proponents said that marriage had to be about procreation, etc., and the judge said that was BS.

post #194 of 226

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I'm not sure how this thread got into gay marriage....

 

Didn't you know that every PO thread eventually ends up discussing abortion, gay rights or evolution? What are you, a newbie? lol.gif

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
post #195 of 226

The diversion went like this....

 

BR: I can't actually defend my reasoning, so I'll just declare you aren't actually entitled to a viewpoint or to participate since you believe in God. I grant this by the authority vested in my by magic unicorns.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #196 of 226
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

You're not saying "anyone" can get married.  You're saying you want the definition of marriage to be what you want it to be.  That in itself is fine, but you're then arguing that any other definition violates the 14th Amendment (presumably under the Equal Protection clause).   This is the issue, because if the government placing limits on marriage violates the 14th Amendment, then the government can't play any limits on marriage whatsoever.  Marriage can legally be anything anyone says.  If I want to marry 12 people, I can.  If I want to marry 60 guys and 3 women, I can. Right?  Can government define marriage?  Or can it only do so when you like the definition?  

 

 

Go right ahead.  Marry 60 guys and 3 women.  I don't want to, but go for it if you do.

 

For some folks, and now new studies back me up on this, I think they fight so hard to keep gays oppressed because if given legitimacy, they'd be gobbling cocks faster than a Republican can filibuster anything President Obama proposes.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #197 of 226

BR, I'm interested in hearing your answer to MJ1970's question: Tell us why you think the government must be the one who "sanctions" or "recognizes" marriages (between men and men, men and women or women and women...whomever)?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

post #198 of 226

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Go right ahead.  Marry 60 guys and 3 women.  I don't want to, but go for it if you do.

 

For some folks, and now new studies back me up on this, I think they fight so hard to keep gays oppressed because if given legitimacy, they'd be gobbling cocks faster than a Republican can filibuster anything President Obama proposes.

 

Following that reasoning, I wonder what this must mean about you and your...ummm...rather strident opposition to people of religious faith.

 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

post #199 of 226

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I'm not sure how this thread got into gay marriage, but I think the debate here about the Prop 8 decision is a little bit off. The argument, as I understand it, is not that the US Constitution requires that gay marriage be legal. It's that when a state passes a law singling out one group to deny them rights, there has to be strict scrutiny of that law, which means there better be a really good reason for it. The Prop 8 proponents said that marriage had to be about procreation, etc., and the judge said that was BS.

 

They amended their Constitution through the proper channels.  Agree or disagree with the amendment....that should really be the end of it.  Instead, you have judges arguing that amendment is improper somehow under California law.  How can that even be?  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

 

 

Go right ahead.  Marry 60 guys and 3 women.  I don't want to, but go for it if you do.

 

For some folks, and now new studies back me up on this, I think they fight so hard to keep gays oppressed because if given legitimacy, they'd be gobbling cocks faster than a Republican can filibuster anything President Obama proposes.

 

So you're saying that the government cannot define marriage, correct? Your other comment is just despicable.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

 

Following that reasoning, I wonder what this must mean about you and your...ummm...rather strident opposition to people of religious faith.

 

 

lol.gif

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #200 of 226
Thread Starter 

14th Amendment to the US constitution trumps prop 8 (which should have had to have been passed by 2/3 but the fuckers cheated their way into somehow making it only require a majority vote).

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Unpleasant Truths: Reagan was for the Buffet Rule