How Is It Legal????

[Procrustes Stretched]

And yet we still have laws that prohibit people from certain activities. Go figure!

The thing that completely and utterly baffles my mind is: why is it the main party that professes "Small Government" the same party that wants to use government to tell two consenting adults that they can't get married, because a certain form of bedroom activity is immoral and incorrect. Using the government to define what is proper and improper bedroom activity when it comes to the realm of sex between two consenting adults is highly intrusive, HUGE government, as in the government's so big it's in my bedroom.

As a proponent of small government, wouldn't you want the individual to have the freedom to decide whether or not they should be allowed to spend their life with another consenting adult, instead of having to use the government to nanny-sit you and make sure you're living a "good Christian life"?

It just completely baffles me.

because of factionalism. one faction within the party (GOP) demands that their view of god's plan be implemented here in the good old USA

clear enough?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Marriage is a privileged not a right.

fyi; Obama broke the 5th when he had alawaki executed by bomb.

Liberals took away free speech when they passed hate speech laws.

Liberals have all but removed the right to bear arms.


these things are far more important.

but you wanna cry about gays getting a marriage license.

grow up.

Marriage is a privilege bestowed by the state on two people. Marriage in a house of worship can be whatever they say it is.

To deny a privilege to a subset of people, that is granted to all other people of equal status/identity/age...is to use the state as a weapon against people's rights to be treated equally under the laws and statutes of the state.

to say as some do that domestic partnerships are like marriage is to back separate but equal.

your opinion of Obama and Alawaki is uninformed and probably dooshbaghish

NO liberal worth their salt ever backed a hate speech law, that is what conservatives and progressives and populists do.

Liberals belong to the NRA.

now crawl back under your rock you loser mutha fooker

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Marriage is a privileged not a right.

Your opinion differs greatly from the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. They have declared that marriage IS a right (on no less than three occasions to boot).

yeah, but the cons who hate activist courts will hope the current court with get all activist and overturn lots of precedents as they did with citizens united

 

[kwc57]

And yet we still have laws that prohibit people from certain activities. Go figure!

The thing that completely and utterly baffles my mind is: why is it the main party that professes "Small Government" the same party that wants to use government to tell two consenting adults that they can't get married, because a certain form of bedroom activity is immoral and incorrect. Using the government to define what is proper and improper bedroom activity when it comes to the realm of sex between two consenting adults is highly intrusive, HUGE government, as in the government's so big it's in my bedroom.

As a proponent of small government, wouldn't you want the individual to have the freedom to decide whether or not they should be allowed to spend their life with another consenting adult, instead of having to use the government to nanny-sit you and make sure you're living a "good Christian life"?

It just completely baffles me.

Oh, don't get me wrong.......I'm a libertarian and in favor of small government. My sister has livedwith her partner for at least 25 years without the benefit of marriage. I don't care what people want to do. That being said, I also realize that gay "marriage" has never been widely accepted in society in recorded history and things don't change overnight. My response was to the "pursuit of happiness" clause that people like to use to justify any and everything they want to do. It might make me happy to put spires on my house and paint it purple and pink and then let the grass grow up around the cars up on blocks in my yard. The neighborhood association I'm part of probably won't like it because of their perceived affect on property values in our little society. I can retain a lawyer and fight for my cause if I so desire and with time, I might win.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And yet we still have laws that prohibit people from certain activities. Go figure!

The thing that completely and utterly baffles my mind is: why is it the main party that professes "Small Government" the same party that wants to use government to tell two consenting adults that they can't get married, because a certain form of bedroom activity is immoral and incorrect. Using the government to define what is proper and improper bedroom activity when it comes to the realm of sex between two consenting adults is highly intrusive, HUGE government, as in the government's so big it's in my bedroom.

As a proponent of small government, wouldn't you want the individual to have the freedom to decide whether or not they should be allowed to spend their life with another consenting adult, instead of having to use the government to nanny-sit you and make sure you're living a "good Christian life"?

It just completely baffles me.

Oh, don't get me wrong.......I'm a libertarian and in favor of small government. My sister has livedwith her partner for at least 25 years without the benefit of marriage. I don't care what people want to do. That being said, I also realize that gay "marriage" has never been widely accepted in society in recorded history and things don't change overnight. My response was to the "pursuit of happiness" clause that people like to use to justify any and everything they want to do. It might make me happy to put spires on my house and paint it purple and pink and then let the grass grow up around the cars up on blocks in my yard. The neighborhood association I'm part of probably won't like it because of their perceived affect on property values in our little society. I can retain a lawyer and fight for my cause if I so desire and with time, I might win.

" My response was to the "pursuit of happiness" clause that people like to use to justify any and everything they want to do. " -

The clause is NOT being used to justify just anything, and the courts have agreed that marriage is more than just a small consideration for individuals and society.

"things don't change overnight" - uhm, gays have been waging the equality battle for decades.

Harry and the Mattachine Society

glbtq >> social sciences >> Daughters of Bilitis

your mention of your sister and your ignorance on the issue suggests more is at play here.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Youre presuming a right exists to begin with.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - some American long ago

So we are violating family members rights when we out law incest between two adults, thanks for playing.

By the way some people find happiness murdering people, should we legalize that too? I can go on with other examples of happiness that is illegal.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, because it's not. Both struggles were cases of a minority being subject to second-class status, discrimination, and improperly unequal treatment. There really is no significant difference at all.

Gays aren't a minority. Any more than people with 6 toes are a minority. Actually less.

They are a minority and if you tried to keep six toed people from marrying, we would be having the same discussion.

They are a minority only in the sense that having 6 toes is an aberration. Like gays I guess. But I wouldn't know it just looking at them.
No one is stopping gays from marrying. They do it all the time.
Why do gay marriage supporters feel the need to lie like this and distort the truth?

 

[The Rabbi]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people...certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That isn't in the Constitution, turd.
Does that mean I can rob you because it would make me happy?

Nope. That would infringe on the other rights to property. Nor can you kill or rape others for any reason.

There are no property rights in the constitution. That's why there's eminent domain.
The only item that specifically is accorded a right is a firearm.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Gays aren't a minority. Any more than people with 6 toes are a minority. Actually less.

They are a minority and if you tried to keep six toed people from marrying, we would be having the same discussion.

They are a minority only in the sense that having 6 toes is an aberration. Like gays I guess. But I wouldn't know it just looking at them.
No one is stopping gays from marrying. They do it all the time.
Why do gay marriage supporters feel the need to lie like this and distort the truth?

You mean that gays get married all the time in the 7 states (out of 50) where it is currently legal.

In the other 43 states? Not so much.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gays aren't a minority. Any more than people with 6 toes are a minority. Actually less.

They are a minority and if you tried to keep six toed people from marrying, we would be having the same discussion.

They are a minority only in the sense that having 6 toes is an aberration. Like gays I guess. But I wouldn't know it just looking at them.
No one is stopping gays from marrying. They do it all the time.
Why do gay marriage supporters feel the need to lie like this and distort the truth?

Why do those who wish to discriminate against gays have to lie about gay's being allowed to marry when everyone understand the discussion is about government recognized Civil Marriage.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

They are a minority and if you tried to keep six toed people from marrying, we would be having the same discussion.

They are a minority only in the sense that having 6 toes is an aberration. Like gays I guess. But I wouldn't know it just looking at them.
No one is stopping gays from marrying. They do it all the time.
Why do gay marriage supporters feel the need to lie like this and distort the truth?

Why do those who wish to discriminate against gays have to lie about gay's being allowed to marry when everyone understand the discussion is about government recognized Civil Marriage.


>>>>

Well you nailed it. It is not about being able to marry. That is a lie. It is about government recognizing the marriage. And it isn't even about that. It is about the money. Gays want a government subsidy for their "lifestyle". That goes beyond recognition to financial support.
Anyone here want to support financially the gay lifestyle?

 

[ABikerSailor]

They are a minority only in the sense that having 6 toes is an aberration. Like gays I guess. But I wouldn't know it just looking at them.
No one is stopping gays from marrying. They do it all the time.
Why do gay marriage supporters feel the need to lie like this and distort the truth?

Why do those who wish to discriminate against gays have to lie about gay's being allowed to marry when everyone understand the discussion is about government recognized Civil Marriage.


>>>>

Well you nailed it. It is not about being able to marry. That is a lie. It is about government recognizing the marriage. And it isn't even about that. It is about the money. Gays want a government subsidy for their "lifestyle". That goes beyond recognition to financial support.
Anyone here want to support financially the gay lifestyle?

It's also a bit more than that Rabid Lie, it's also about being able to visit a sick SO in the hospital (only immediate family members are allowed), as well as other things like accumulation of property (lots of gay couples who have lived together tend to buy things together but if one dies, who gets the stuff), as well as many other issues.

Money in the form of tax benefits that straight couples get is only part of the issue.

 

[Dragon]

There are no property rights in the constitution.

Why do you say inane things like this, or like claiming that gays aren't a minority, when anyone can see how wrong you are and you just look like a fool?

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." (Article I, Section 9.)

"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." (Article VI.)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (Amendment II.)

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." (Amendment III.)

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Amendment IV.)

"No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (Amendment V.)

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." (Amendment VII.)

All of these sections protect property rights.

 

[kwc57]

The thing that completely and utterly baffles my mind is: why is it the main party that professes "Small Government" the same party that wants to use government to tell two consenting adults that they can't get married, because a certain form of bedroom activity is immoral and incorrect. Using the government to define what is proper and improper bedroom activity when it comes to the realm of sex between two consenting adults is highly intrusive, HUGE government, as in the government's so big it's in my bedroom.

As a proponent of small government, wouldn't you want the individual to have the freedom to decide whether or not they should be allowed to spend their life with another consenting adult, instead of having to use the government to nanny-sit you and make sure you're living a "good Christian life"?

It just completely baffles me.

Oh, don't get me wrong.......I'm a libertarian and in favor of small government. My sister has livedwith her partner for at least 25 years without the benefit of marriage. I don't care what people want to do. That being said, I also realize that gay "marriage" has never been widely accepted in society in recorded history and things don't change overnight. My response was to the "pursuit of happiness" clause that people like to use to justify any and everything they want to do. It might make me happy to put spires on my house and paint it purple and pink and then let the grass grow up around the cars up on blocks in my yard. The neighborhood association I'm part of probably won't like it because of their perceived affect on property values in our little society. I can retain a lawyer and fight for my cause if I so desire and with time, I might win.

" My response was to the "pursuit of happiness" clause that people like to use to justify any and everything they want to do. " -

The clause is NOT being used to justify just anything, and the courts have agreed that marriage is more than just a small consideration for individuals and society.

"things don't change overnight" - uhm, gays have been waging the equality battle for decades.

Harry and the Mattachine Society

glbtq >> social sciences >> Daughters of Bilitis

your mention of your sister and your ignorance on the issue suggests more is at play here.

Sure it is, just like "promote the general welfare" is used to justify any and everything like a "right" to healthcare. Horseshit.

 

[Seawytch]

They are a minority only in the sense that having 6 toes is an aberration. Like gays I guess. But I wouldn't know it just looking at them.
No one is stopping gays from marrying. They do it all the time.
Why do gay marriage supporters feel the need to lie like this and distort the truth?

Why do those who wish to discriminate against gays have to lie about gay's being allowed to marry when everyone understand the discussion is about government recognized Civil Marriage.


>>>>

Well you nailed it. It is not about being able to marry. That is a lie. It is about government recognizing the marriage. And it isn't even about that. It is about the money. Gays want a government subsidy for their "lifestyle". That goes beyond recognition to financial support.
Anyone here want to support financially the gay lifestyle?

You mean like we support the heterosexual "lifestyle"?

 

[KevinWestern]

Well you nailed it. It is not about being able to marry. That is a lie. It is about government recognizing the marriage. And it isn't even about that. It is about the money. Gays want a government subsidy for their "lifestyle". That goes beyond recognition to financial support.
Anyone here want to support financially the gay lifestyle?

The gay people I know merely want to do things that my wife and I can do, like file taxes together, be able to access each other's medical information, be able to rent a car and have the other person eligible to drive it automatically, be able to change one another's will - that sort of thing.

Why do straight people care so much about restricting this access to people they don't know or care about? Baffles me. Just completely baffles me.

I say give gays equal rights, as it's not going to affect my life in any drastic adverse way whatsoever. Stop trying to use the government as a means to make people you don't know worse off, and yourself unchanged. That's ridiculous.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why do those who wish to discriminate against gays have to lie about gay's being allowed to marry when everyone understand the discussion is about government recognized Civil Marriage.


>>>>

Well you nailed it. It is not about being able to marry. That is a lie. It is about government recognizing the marriage. And it isn't even about that. It is about the money. Gays want a government subsidy for their "lifestyle". That goes beyond recognition to financial support.
Anyone here want to support financially the gay lifestyle?

You mean like we support the heterosexual "lifestyle"?

Yes. The one that produces stable nuclear families and raises responsible citizens and leaders. That is exactly why.
Thanks for bringing this up!

 

[The Rabbi]

Well you nailed it. It is not about being able to marry. That is a lie. It is about government recognizing the marriage. And it isn't even about that. It is about the money. Gays want a government subsidy for their "lifestyle". That goes beyond recognition to financial support.
Anyone here want to support financially the gay lifestyle?

The gay people I know merely want to do things that my wife and I can do, like file taxes together, be able to access each other's medical information, be able to rent a car and have the other person eligible to drive it automatically, be able to change one another's will - that sort of thing.

Why do straight people care so much about restricting this access to people they don't know or care about? Baffles me. Just completely baffles me.

I say give gays equal rights, as it's not going to affect my life in any drastic adverse way whatsoever. Stop trying to use the government as a means to make people you don't know worse off, and yourself unchanged. That's ridiculous.

The gay people I know want to fuck as much as possible and do drugs.
Would you like to compare gay rates of disease and addiction with straight rates?

 

[Seawytch]

Well you nailed it. It is not about being able to marry. That is a lie. It is about government recognizing the marriage. And it isn't even about that. It is about the money. Gays want a government subsidy for their "lifestyle". That goes beyond recognition to financial support.
Anyone here want to support financially the gay lifestyle?

You mean like we support the heterosexual "lifestyle"?

Yes. The one that produces stable nuclear families and raises responsible citizens and leaders. That is exactly why.
Thanks for bringing this up!

Nuclear families aren't a requirement for legal marriage so your "argument" won't hold up in court.

You can't actually come up with a valid reason to keep these benefits and protections from my family...it's WHY your "argument" keeps failing in court.

 

[KevinWestern]

The gay people I know want to fuck as much as possible and do drugs.

Apparently you've never been to college, because when I attended school there were many more straight people I knew than gay people who fell into that category.

Would you like to compare gay rates of disease and addiction with straight rates?

Sure, but its a totally moot point to the topic. There's always going to be gay people. They're going to exist, they're going to live together, and they're going to be your neighbors. Restricting Gay marriage isn't going to change any of that. In fact, restricting gay marriage is just going to make the gay community even more motivated and in your newspapers, in your political discussions, ect, as they fight for equal rights.

Just let it go. Again, why use the government to make a group of people that is not you worse off, and your life unchanged as a result? Again, it's ridiculous.