or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Britain Goes the Civil Union Route (Media Says it's Marriage).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Britain Goes the Civil Union Route (Media Says it's Marriage). - Page 2

post #41 of 113

Ooh, while we're at it, let's remove all taxes and replace them with "society buy-ins" that do the same thing.  I'm sure all of your arguments against taxes will suddenly disappear now that we've had a name change.  PROBLEM SOLVED.

 

What?  You object?  I'm sorry, you didn't hear me.

 

PROBLEM SOLVED.

 

“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
Reply

 

“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
Reply
post #42 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

How does it affect you?  Unless you are gay and in a relationship that you don't want to turn into official marriage, or some sort of self-loathing homosexual that doesn't want his true feelings legitimized, I don't see how.  Since I don't think it's either of those two options, I'm pretty sure it doesn't affect you at all.

 

Redefining and possibly harming a cultural pillar and tradition harms us all.  The potential destruction of marriage as an institution harms us all, just as the breakdown of the nuclear family has harmed us all.  

 

Let me make this simple, though:  I could probably support gay marriage if there was a real answer to the slippery slope problem I outlined.  But everything I see and everything I know about the secular-progressive left tells me there isn't an answer.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that the next step won't be a push for polygamous marriage.  Why?  Because it's the same reasoning...love who you want.  And if you love you want, why shouldn't you be allowed to "marry" him or her?  

 

I'll come back to it...my concerns are the slippery slope, and the altering of the institution itself.  This is why I think civil unions (again, even if for everyone) are the way to go.  But I suspect that doesn't satisfy you or any other pro-gay marriage individual.  That's because, as I posted earlier, this isn't about legal rights to many gays and gay rights groups.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

Especially when it's based on an age old prejudice.1wink.gif

 

Just can't help yourself, hmm?  

 

 

Quote:

Predictions if accurate have to be based on proof or evidence to be valid. Otherwise they're like the idea the world is going to end because a Mayan calendar ended.1wink.gif

 

In other words they're worthless predictions.

 

Do you see a common theme here when I'm replying to you about these issues on different threads (  proof /  evidence )?

 

jimmac, I'm simply expressing my concern about what may happen to marriage.  Given the history of the secular-progressive left, I think a push (eventually) for polygamous marriage is likely to occur.  There is no data available here, on either side.  You're saying you don't think it's likely, and I'm saying I do.  The arguments are somewhat anecdotal and subjective.  For example, I've explained that one reason I think a push for polygamous marriage is likely is that the reasoning that would be used is the same as the reasoning used for today's push for gay marriage.   Do you care to address that, or continue ignoring it?  

 

Also, a few other questions:  

 

1)  Would you support polygamous marriage?  Why or why not?  

2)  If not, on what grounds would you deny the "right" of marriage to more than one person?  

3)  Should there be a limit on how many people one can marry, or not?  What should the limit be?  On what grounds is it decided?  

 

 

Quote:
In my book anyone who bases their ideas about government on a prejudice isn't dealing with reality and shouldn't be making decisions for the rest of us. 

 

In principle, I agree.  But there are a lot of caveats to that statement.  Who decides what's prejudiced?  Why Is someone who is prejudiced also "not dealing with reality?"  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
I'm sure those ultra conservative factions don't see themselves that way either.

 

To whom top you refer, specifically?  Which beliefs is someone allowed to hold in order to be in office?  Which beliefs are forbidden?  Who decides?  Are all devout Christians banned from office?  What about devout Muslims, who oppose homosexuality even more fervently?  Should we have an ideological purity/diversity test for our officials?  Seems to me someone hasn't thought this out.  

 

Quote:

I'm saying I do

Please tell me why? So far I' haven't heard a thing on this score.

 

 

Quote:

To whom top you refer, specifically?

The more conservative factions of the GOP like the Tea party types. They aren't really in step with modern society and care less about the people and more about the issues themselves and their agenda. That's wrong in my book. And please don't ask me for an example there have been plenty in the last few days in the news ( some of which I've posted links for you ).

 

Also I haven't heard of any big push for polygamy

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #43 of 113

Boy a guy goes and enjoys the holidays and it looks like SDW is getting it from all sides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

It's a shame that the Church of England (and some other religious organisations) feels the need to be so bigoted on this matter. Let's not forget the the Church of England was formed because of Henry VIII's desire to change England's marriage laws.

 

I'm noting this part of the post because latter in the discussion there are several parties who keep asking how a person can be harmed by gay marriage and acceptance of it. This thread is about that point and you hit it right on the head. When those who declare any disagreement with their view to be bigotry and hatred, then you can bet that they will seek laws that outlaw what they deem to be bigotry and hatred. That means people holding certain views will soon be able to be prosecuted for them. The irony here is that it isn't gay men or women who need to have a law here protecting them but the Church of England which needs a law to protect them against religious bigotry.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Nope, he would choose a different minister. Right now, there are churches that refuse membership to homosexuals. Where are all the lawsuits you want us to fear?
Quote:
Now, do I think that would happen right away?  No, I don't.  I also don't think you'd see immediate challenges to the limitation of marrying only one other person at a time.
Ah yes, the slippery slope argument.
Quote:
But that's another strong possibility.  It's also an argument you have flatly refused to address.  We are changing the definition of marriage based on the reasoning that people should be able to marry whomever they choose, whomever they love, etc.  Correct?  Well, if that's the case, there is absolutely no argument for preventing polygamous marriage.
Completely untrue. There are plenty of scientific arguments against allowing polygamous marriage.
Quote:
All I have to do is claim my genetics prevent me from loving only one person.  In fact, I can probably do that right now.  How dare you deny me my right to marry two women and the guy that makes my pizza?  How dare you oppose me having marriage equality?  I demand an end to the bigotry!  
No, there's no scientific evidence that such a proclivity exists, and even if there was, there is plenty of scientific evidence (unlike the case with homosexuality) that social disadvantages outweigh the desire to marry more than one person. However (and this is the important part), if in the future there is evidence that the social consequences of polygamy would be minimal, then perhaps yes, it may some day become an accepted activity. And if it does, assuming science supports it... Then... So what? Things change. Society changes. Deal with it.

 

First and foremost the lawsuits are out there. They are out there on these matters just like they are out there for states and recognition of gay marriage. Here is an example related to a matter even more removed than what you were discussing. It is in a lawsuit and case law may come from it. You cannot simply say that any concerns are invalid in an instance where the lawsuit hasn't had a verdict yet. I assure you that a wide enough search will term up lawsuits regarding gay couples and all manner of civil interactions.

 

SDW is also correct in noting concerns about polygamy because the case law that a few courts have made to try to justify gay marriage have had horrible reasoning and the reasoning would apply if a similar lawsuit were brought involving polygamy. As an example for religion, whether we all agree with it or not, we have the Lemon test. For gay marriage they have ruled that the state interest did not survive strict scrutiny.

 

So to declare that SDW is using a slippery-slope you and others should show how gay marriage deserves strict scrutiny to overcome the state interest, but polygamy does not. I haven't seen that case made yet but I'm open to reading about it. From what I've read, right now polygamy would win that fight.

 

Those against gay marriage argue that the law need only be supported on a rational basis, not strict scrutiny. Rational basis is the same basis that allows the state to declare you must be 18 to marry, 16 to drive, etc. I believe within a few years or perhaps even now that many states would allow gay marriage if it were put to a vote and that allowing it on a rational basis is best. It does not toss out the baby with the bath water. There are compelling but merely rational reasons for the state to legislate marriage. If you raise the bar too high then nothing can jump over it.

 

Also there are all manner of historic examples of polyamory and proof of polygamy as social norms.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

SDW, I see your slippery slope argument and reverse it.

 

Fun aside--I'll go further than tonton, however, and welcome legal polygamy. I, too, would like to hear about these alleged scientific disadvantages.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

SDW, I see your slippery slope argument and reverse it.

 

Fun aside--I'll go further than tonton, however, and welcome legal polygamy. I, too, would like to hear about these alleged scientific disadvantages.

 

 

Uh, my "slippery slope" has a key difference:  No one can explain why we wouldn't slide down it.  You yourself have acknowledged that these concerns make gay marriage a very imperfect solution.  Your conclusion has been "damn the torpedos, we should do it anyway."   

 

Oh, and as for polygamy:  Should there be a limit on how many people one can legally marry?  Can I list 57 spouses on my tax return?  If there is a limit, what should it be, and what is the justification for that number?  There are many practical concerns here to say the least.  But once again, damn the torpedos!  

 

You shouldn't reply to his stupid cartoon. It is nothing more than a strawman. There aren't practical concerns. Certain courts have declared marriage a right much like speech. Laws must overcome strict scrutiny to survive a legal challenge. The challenges must show they are necessary and/or crucial, not just preferred. Two person marriage is a preference. It isn't necessary. It isn't crucial. Any lawsuits brought against laws against polygamy that cite gay marriage rulings as case law will prevail if the Supreme Court upholds them.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

It's a matter of equality. Currently we have a system where some people in society are allowed to marry the person that they love and some people can't. 

 

In most western societies, no-one can marry more than one person and that's why the slippery slope argument is silly. Equal marriage isn't about expanding rights but simply levelling the playing field.

 

Your reasoning is not sound. It amounts to tradition says that marriage is between a man and a woman but because of equality it should change after thousands of years. You then turn around and say that anyone who would argue that marriage ought not be between two people ought to shut up because it's tradition and it's always been done this way.

 

That's absurd.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Burden of proof is on you, not me, buddy.

 

No the burden of proof is on you to show that the legal test declares that marriage is a fundamental right and thus any laws regulating it must pass strict scrutiny would uphold polygamy laws because of..........X.

 

I'll give you a hint. You can't because this stuff is still making its way through the courts and X hasn't been well defined. In fact it has been terribly defined which is why it is going to the Supreme Court. If it is ruled on well there we might end up with something along the lines of the Lemon test. However current rulings do not grant the state the right to stop polygamy if case law regarding homosexual marriage is used to challenge it in court. The fact that gay marriage hasn't been affirmed in the highest law of the land and that said case law hasn't been used making a ruling regarding polygamy just means life is a movie instead of a snapshot, not that SDW is engaging in slippery-slope. When you look though the lawsuits are forming and they will happen.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It had the very real potential of rendering the term meaningless.

What does this mean?

 

It means if nothing can survive strict scrutiny per the courts then the state won't be able to do much to regulate marriage. Fundamental rights are funny that way. 12 year olds can sign themselves out of schools for abortions because health care and privacy are fundamental rights. The same 12 year olds can go hold protest signs down on the street demanding and speaking as they desire. Speech is a fundamental right. Driving isn't a right as a counter-example. Those making the case for gay marriage have declared it is a fundamental right. How does a law survive strict scrutiny when it involves preferences be they man and woman, age, number of partners, etc. The ruling will apply against all marriage criteria, not just the criteria you want changed today come hell or high water.

 

You and others have heard me go on for probably half a decade saying I support gay marriage but I do not support the way the courts are ruling on it. They are taking the wrong path to get there. Marriage isn't a right because rights can hardly ever be limited. Courts have ruled that even corporations can't have their speech limited in terms of dollars spent. You think the same courts will turn around and rule that the fundamental right to marriage stops at wherever you get your panties in a knot?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No one is ever forcing someone to accept someone else's values. If you think gay sex is wrong, then you are perfectly free not to have it. If you think gay marriage is wrong, then you are perfectly free not to marry someone of the same sex.

Now if what you REALLY want is the right to force YOUR values on someone else, then to that I believe I can rightfully object.

 

Wrong. If you have your values declared bigoted and wrong then people will legislate against them and take action against you. There is a reason the law that caused the thread to be originated exists. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists because otherwise the Church of England would be sued. Per your reasoning the Boy Scouts have never been sued as an example be we all know they have been sued multiple times all for doing nothing more than doing as you state, declaring that their own membership has to accept their values or leave the club.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


I disagree with that entirely.
I am referring to the forced acceptance and embrace of gay rights, even the gay rights agenda. Go into a school or corporate America and see what happens if you don't embrace said ideas. You'll practically be signed up for rehab. As for what you do, I tend to agree. Unless it affects me...redefining marriage does.

How does it affect you?  Unless you are gay and in a relationship that you don't want to turn into official marriage, or some sort of self-loathing homosexual that doesn't want his true feelings legitimized, I don't see how.  Since I don't think it's either of those two options, I'm pretty sure it doesn't affect you at all.

 

It is typically not appropriate for public employees, public officials and most public companies to endorse positions that are illegal. Right now there is a debate because gay marriage is largely illegal. Your claims ring hollow because you say that legalization wouldn't affect those opposed. Let me ask you what would happen to a board member of Apple, a school teacher, or a politician who didn't espouse interracial marriage since that is what gay marriage is often compared to by some. Would you declare them fit to do what they do and would you just declare they ought to be left alone?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

"Harming"?

You claim you're not a bigot. Then you say "harming". Liar.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You say it will harm marriage but you don't quantify that harm at all.  HOW will it harm marriage?  

 

I've given the criteria above. You and anyone else are welcome to show how if marriage is a fundamental right that criteria other than sex of the parties will survive strict scrutiny. I don't think it will. I don't say that as someone who opposes gay marriage. I say that as someone who supports it. However you need the right tool for the job. California has gone about this wrong and I mentioned in another thread how I hope the Supreme Court would rule. If they rule wrong though, it will really hurt the ability to regulate marriage in any form or fashion, not just with regard to gay marriage.

 

Another example could be Obamacare. Some conservative website ruled that Roberts really did everyone a favor. He ruled Obamacare constitutional not because health care is a right, but because it is a tax and Congress can pass taxes. It can also rescind taxes which means Obamacare can be reversed.


Edited by trumptman - 1/6/13 at 6:36pm

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #44 of 113
Trumpy, you have created a false equivalency between marrying who you want, and marrying more than once. The arguments made in favor of same sex marriage do not apply to polygamous marriage, because we are only allowed to marry once.

Let me explain this by comparing this to choosing a name. We get to choose our name. We cannot choose more than one name. Likewise, we get to choose our spouse. We cannot choose more than one spouse. Court cases in support of gay marriage cannot and will not change that.

Again, just like SDW, you're attempting to spread unwarranted FUD.
post #45 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Vilified? As much as people supporting gay marriage are vilified by the people who oppose it? Not even close.

I disagree with that entirely.

Let me give you an example. Just yesterday, A story was linked on Facebook about the same sex pro-bowling kiss.

Literally every third post was telling supporters that they were going to hell along with the couple who had been profiled.

Are you ignorant of that level of vilification, or just dismissive of it?

Perhaps you agree with it, so you don't notice things like that.
post #46 of 113
So on one hand you have the gay marriage opponents being told things as strong as, "you're on the wrong side of history," while on the other hand supporters of gay marriage are being told, incessantly, that we're going to burn forever in hell, or at least, that we're "destroying the institution of marriage". For feck's sake, you're guilty of that vilifying accusation yourself (SDW). Now who do you think is being vilified?
Edited by tonton - 1/7/13 at 5:28am
post #47 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Trumpy, you have created a false equivalency between marrying who you want, and marrying more than once. The arguments made in favor of same sex marriage do not apply to polygamous marriage, because we are only allowed to marry once.

Let me explain this by comparing this to choosing a name. We get to choose our name. We cannot choose more than one name. Likewise, we get to choose our spouse. We cannot choose more than one spouse. Court cases in support of gay marriage cannot and will not change that.

Again, just like SDW, you're attempting to spread unwarranted FUD.

 

This is nothing more than just a dismissal tonton. The matter was clearly explained.

 

If marriage is a fundamental right, then any law that limits that right must survive strict scrutiny. This will be case law. It will be a precedent. It will be like the Lemon law for religion or like Roe v Wade for abortion/privacy. It will be like Lawrence vs. Texas for sodomy.

 

ALL LAWS, not just laws involving homosexual marriage, ALL LAWS.....will have to pass that legal test.

 

It isn't at all a false equivalence to say that polygamy supporters will challenge polygamy laws using the strict scrutiny standard. It is a foregone conclusion that they would use the prior precedent to help determine future case law. That's the way the system works.

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #48 of 113
I've explained why you're wrong in this case. How the system works is that you only get to choose one name. You only get to choose one spouse. That's how the system works. You're the one being dismissive of that very clear fact.
post #49 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I've explained why you're wrong in this case. How the system works is that you only get to choose one name. You only get to choose one spouse. That's how the system works. You're the one being dismissive of that very clear fact.

 

You've never head of aliases, or fictitious names as just two examples? I mean talk about apple's and oranges. What does your name have to do with a spouse? There isn't even a legal requirement to change a name so just keep your own name and have 20 spouses.

 

You're reaching and flaying badly with your strawman that has no basis in law.

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #50 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You say it will harm marriage but you don't quantify that harm at all.  HOW will it harm marriage?  

 

I explained it several times.  Please go back and read.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Exactly. He claims that same sex marriage is "harming" the institution. **** that. Newt Gingrich is harming the institution. Witch hunts for infidelity (on both sides of the political spectrum) are harming the institution. Repressed sexuality is harming the institution. By redefining marriage as a union of love between two people, we are SAVING the institution.
Now he's moved the goalposts about his "harming" comment and saying that the harm comes when we slide down the slippery slope. That's idiotic. .

 

tonton, I'm starting to wonder if you're even reading what I post.  As I explained, I did not mean to imply or state that gay marriage itself "harms" the institution of marriage.  I was talking about the potential consequences down the line.  Please make an effort to actually engage in discussion by reading what I post.  

 

 

Quote:
 Support gay marriage and oppose polygamy if that's what you want.

 

No thanks, I think I'm free to have my own opinion.  

 

 

 

Quote:
And it's not just logistics that make polygamy a difficult argument, there's also sociology and psychology involved

 

Yes, there is sociological component, but it doesn't favor your position.  The entire gay rights movement is predicated upon the fact that homosexuality is not a choice, but rather it is biological.  Funny, because so is polygamy.  Humans are not naturally monogamous. That is a sociological concept.  We don't allow gay marriage or polygamous marriage because that's not how they are defined.  Once we decide to fundamentally alter the meaning of "marriage," the flood gates open.  There will be no legal, moral or even logical grounds on which we can oppose further changes.  

 

But we have a problem, and that is obviously equality under the law.  I agree it is not right that gays cannot enjoy the legal benefits of marriage.  However, I'm not willing to risk the eventual dilution of the institution by redefining the term.  This is why civil unions make sense, even if all couples get them and we separate them from the term "marriage."   It avoids the potential pitfalls, and still grants equal rights.  

 

Of course, you, BR, jimmac et al oppose this idea.  In my opinion this is because you don't just want equal legal rights.  You want to transform society so that gay marriage is given 100% equal social standing.  


Edited by SDW2001 - 1/7/13 at 1:00pm
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #51 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I've explained why you're wrong in this case. How the system works is that you only get to choose one name. You only get to choose one spouse. That's how the system works. You're the one being dismissive of that very clear fact.

You've never head of aliases, or fictitious names as just two examples? I mean talk about apple's and oranges. What does your name have to do with a spouse? There isn't even a legal requirement to change a name so just keep your own name and have 20 spouses.

You're reaching and flaying badly with your strawman that has no basis in law.
Wtf are you talking about? Sure you can have more than one name, but only one can be legally recognized. You have to go to court to legally change it. No one is stopping you from having a second "wife" that isn't legally married to you (unless limited by adultery laws, which is another topic entirely). A hell of a lot of men do exactly that.
Edited by tonton - 1/7/13 at 3:47pm
post #52 of 113

This bill passed today by 400 votes to 175.

 

Same sex couples in England & Wales will be able to get married - including in the places of worship of those religious organisations that opt-in.

 

A good day for freedom and equality.

post #53 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

This bill passed today by 400 votes to 175.

Same sex couples in England & Wales will be able to get married - including in the places of worship of those religious organisations that opt-in.

A good day for freedom and equality.
Still has to pass the house of Lawds. Fat chance there.
post #54 of 113

Despite the  number of bishops in the Lords, it's unlikely that they'll go against such a large majority.

post #55 of 113

"Gay or straight, marriage should be out of the hands of the state":

 

 

Quote:
"depending on government to enforce the values you hold is a dangerous game"

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #56 of 113

Yes, you want to hospitals to be free to deny death-bed visits from grieving spouses.  You put the right to be a disgusting bigot ahead of the right of a spouse to say goodbye.  This is precisely why the state needs to enforce equal treatment.

 

“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
Reply

 

“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
Reply
post #57 of 113
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #58 of 113

But what you won't defend is the right of a person to say goodbye to his or her spouse when an ignorant jackass tries to get in the way.  Your talk is cheap.   When it really matters, you give a giant "**** you" to homosexuals.

 

“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
Reply

 

“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
Reply
post #59 of 113

Trolling again BR?

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #60 of 113

Tell me what I said that wasn't factual.  You have defended the right of hospitals to turn away homosexual spouses.  That's fucking despicable.  

 

“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
Reply

 

“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
Reply
post #61 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Tell me what I said that wasn't factual.

 

What you said isn't factual.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You have defended the right of hospitals to turn away homosexual spouses.

 

Yes. However, homosexual couples also have the right to use other facilities (or approaches) that do not restrict access in this way. I notice you've conveniently omitted this from your vitriol.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

That's fucking despicable.  

 

Thanks for your opinion.

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #62 of 113

Emergency situation arises.  Person is in an accident and is taken to the nearest hospital.  That person isn't going to make it.  That person has only hours to live.  You are saying that if the hospital has such a bigoted, disgusting policy in place, that the person should have to transfer to a different hospital?  What if all the hospitals in the region are like that?  I'm sorry, but you don't get the freedom to **** with other people's lives like that.

 

I hold the value of love and equality above your value of freedom to hate.

 

“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
Reply

 

“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
Reply
post #63 of 113
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Emergency situation arises.  Person is in an accident and is taken to the nearest hospital.  That person isn't going to make it.  That person has only hours to live.  You are saying that if the hospital has such a bigoted, disgusting policy in place, that the person should have to transfer to a different hospital? What if all the hospitals in the region are like that?

 

You're claiming that the hospital would have such a policy in reality?

 

Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm sorry, but you don't get the freedom to **** with other people's lives like that.

 

Actually, you do have the right do be bigoted and the right to set the terms of conduct on your property. I certainly don't agree with acting in bigoted ways (as you so frequently do). But it is you're right.


Originally Posted by BR View Post

I hold the value of love and equality above your value of freedom to hate.

 

The simple fact is that you are the person I've see who exercises their freedom to hate more than any other I know of.

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #64 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You're claiming that the hospital would have such a policy in reality?
Your extreme folly is that you assume it wouldn't. Of course a hospital in the Bible Belt would forbid a gay person from seeing his dying partner. You're a liar if you claim it wouldn't.
post #65 of 113
Originally Posted by tonton View Post
Your extreme folly is that you assume it wouldn't.

 

Extreme folly? Really? lol.gif


Originally Posted by tonton View Post
Of course a hospital in the Bible Belt would forbid a gay person from seeing his dying partner.

 

Of course they would? What do you have to prove this strident claim of yours?


Originally Posted by tonton View Post
You're a liar if you claim it wouldn't.

 

Well, since you made the claim, I'll let you support and prove it.

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #66 of 113
People, MJ just said a hospital in the Bible Belt wouldn't forbid visitation from a gay partner if given the freedom to do so. Honestly, he said that. lol.gif
post #67 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

People, MJ just said a hospital in the Bible Belt wouldn't forbid visitation from a gay partner if given the freedom to do so. Honestly, he said that. lol.gif

 

People, tonton just made a claim without facts or supporting evidence and is attempting to foist ownership onto me by using the classic (but lame) argumentum de incredulity fallacy to "support" his claim.

 

1rolleyes.gif

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #68 of 113

I find it interesting that the likes of tonton, BR, etc. claim people do not have the right to act or think in ways they disapprove of, and have no problem with trying to use the government to violently force people to think and act the way they want. Yet in the same breath they lament the fact that people have used the government to try to violently force others to think and act in the very ways they disapprove of.

 

Is the government the solution or the problem?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

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

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

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

Reply
post #69 of 113
MJ, hospitals in the Bible Belt right now don't allow visitation rights for gay partners. Right now.

That should change, in the name of the rights of the people involved. And yes, just like forbidding buses from forcing blacks to sit in the back of the bus, government is the only solution.
post #70 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

MJ, hospitals in the Bible Belt right now don't allow visitation rights for gay partners. Right now.

 

See, that wasn't so hard. Now we're starting to get closer to actual evidence in support of your claim. Which ones?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

That should change, in the name of the rights of the people involved. And yes, just like forbidding buses from forcing blacks to sit in the back of the bus, government is the only solution.

 

We're all aware of your opinion on this subject.

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #71 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And yes, just like forbidding buses from forcing blacks to sit in the back of the bus, government is the only solution.

 

But wait. I thought we were supposed to shut up and accept the will of the majority and honor some "social contract" that nobody ever signed, and if we don't like it, move to another country.

 

And how can government be the solution to a problem it created?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

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

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

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

Reply
post #72 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

But wait. I thought we were supposed to shut up and accept the will of the majority and honor some "social contract" that nobody ever signed, and if we don't like it, move to another country.

 

And how can government be the solution to a problem it created?

 

There's a particular irony in the example he refers to. The whole bus thing was a result of city government ordinances/laws (part of the Jim Crow laws) which specifically called for segregation by race.

 

No one is proposing any such thing here.

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #73 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

But wait. I thought we were supposed to shut up and accept the will of the majority and honor some "social contract" that nobody ever signed, and if we don't like it, move to another country.

And how can government be the solution to a problem it created?

There's a particular irony in the example he refers to. The whole bus thing was a result of city government ordinances/laws (part of the Jim Crow laws) which specifically called for segregation by race.

No one is proposing any such thing here.
There's a particular irony in the fact that people like you ignore the fact that the laws were chosen by the people of the region, as well as the fact that even absent of any laws, heinous acts of discrimination continued all over the place. I guess lynchings were a result of laws as well.
post #74 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

...the laws were chosen by the people of the region...

 

Enforced by the sword of the state.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

as well as the fact that even absent of any laws, heinous acts of discrimination continued all over the place.

 

What "heinous discrimination" are you referring to?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I guess lynchings were a result of laws as well.

 

I didn't say that. Nor do I advocate the use of violence against anyone by anyone. This is where we differ: You advocate the use of violence against some by some.

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #75 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

...the laws were chosen by the people of the region...

 

Enforced by the sword of the state.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

as well as the fact that even absent of any laws, heinous acts of discrimination continued all over the place.

 

What "heinous discrimination" are you referring to?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I guess lynchings were a result of laws as well.

 

I didn't say that. Nor do I advocate the use of violence against anyone by anyone. This is where we differ: You advocate the use of violence against some by some.


So do you. Either that or you would just let a murderer walk away if you didn't see it with your own eyes. You still haven't explained how that scenario would work out.

 

You know that idiotic cartoon about the thugs and the "gun-free zone"? You ridicule people for not realizing that people will commit crimes whether there are laws there or not.

 

But at the same time, you seem to be strongly implying that without laws in place, somehow everybody, including potential criminals, will suddenly follow the "no initiative violence" principle, without any sort of enforcement (which requires initiative violence).

 

Logic doesn't seem to be the strong point of libertarian utopian idealists.

post #76 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

MJ, hospitals in the Bible Belt right now don't allow visitation rights for gay partners. Right now.

 

See, that wasn't so hard. Now we're starting to get closer to actual evidence in support of your claim. Which ones?

 

Before Obama? All of them.

 

Now? Any of those who don't participate in Medicare and Medicaid.

post #77 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So do you. Either that or you would just let a murderer walk away if you didn't see it with your own eyes.

 

Wrong. 1oyvey.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You know that idiotic cartoon about the thugs and the "gun-free zone"? You ridicule people for not realizing that people will commit crimes whether there are laws there or not.

 

But at the same time, you seem to be strongly implying that without laws in place, somehow everybody, including potential criminals, will suddenly follow the "no initiative violence" principle, without any sort of enforcement (which requires initiative violence).

 

So it's straw men today?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Logic doesn't seem to be the strong point of libertarian utopian idealists.

 

That's just hilariously ironic coming from you.

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #78 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Before Obama? All of them.

 

Now? Any of those who don't participate in Medicare and Medicaid.

 

Source?

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #79 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Before Obama? All of them.

Now? Any of those who don't participate in Medicare and Medicaid.

Source?
Plausible deniability. Should have guessed.
post #80 of 113

same  sex marriages are completely useless. It should be a man and a woman period from the start of the Bible until now.
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Britain Goes the Civil Union Route (Media Says it's Marriage).