"Smaller government" advocates

[Skull Pilot]

The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

Well said...

I'd only add, that 'Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman'.

And cheese means mold, well it did in the olden days, but the word changed.

Things change. The English speaking world has the UK, Australia, South Africa, the US and parts of Canada with marriage meaning two consenting adults. I'm sorry you can't cope with change.

Yet Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman.

This being defined through the physiological standard of the human species... Wherein such is designed with two distinct, but complementing genders; each specifically designed to join with the other.

See how that works?

Not throughout most of human history, especially as cited in the Bible.

Throughout human history... Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. There are no exceptions in the Bible. You're conflating the taking of more than one wife, with the physical joining.

No where in the Bible has God sanctioned the joining of two people of the same gender; but that follows given that God designed humanity; designing such with two distinct genders, each specifically designed to join with, the other.

All of those being tasked by God with populating the kingdom God provided them... are of course entitled to take as many wives as is necessary to get the job done.

The rest of you men... ya got lucky, God has blessed you with only one wife.

And why should people be forced to live by the words of your god?

The bile is not the law of the land and thankfully never will be

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The theory of Human Rights basically dictates that you can do what you like as long as you don't hurt others.

So you're saying that the theory of human rights provides that one can't hurt others when you do what you want?

ROFLMNAO!

Therefore when two people of the same gender pretend to be people of opposite gender, illicitly impersonating the human biological imperative and use that deception as a means to undermine the cultural nucleus... thus injuring the viability of the entire culture, then those individual would therefore have no such right to do so.

So here we find a Leftist spouting one thing even as they claim the diametric opposite.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Smaller government" advocates continue to post in this thread and continue to fail to support their 'argument.'

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And why should people be forced to live by the words of your god?

God isn't forcing anyone to live by his words.

God established the laws of nature and provided each individual with the means to choose to obey those laws and enjoy the benefits of having done so, or to reject those laws and suffer the consequences.

One has no need to accept it... that is simply how it is. Just as one cannot flap their arms and fly... one cannot choose to join with a person of their own gender... and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to the laws of nature; OKA: God's Law.

What you're trying to do is to reject God's law and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to such. Which is as foolish... as it is impossible, but it's your injuring of others, in leading them toward chaos, calamity and catastrophe... where you convict yourself.

For this, you will pay dearly. And you should know that claiming ignorance, will not be accepted as a viable defense.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Those on the right who cry for a smaller government are wanting cuts to government agencies or their total disbandment with the hopes of a free market without checks and balances so that the market can screw and rip-off the consumer without the fear of being fined or penalized.

Hmmm... So you're claiming then that you know someone who is demanding that 'smaller government' is defined as a government absent a judiciary?

And this despite "Smaller Government" having been specifically defined as government which comports with the enumerated scope and power defined in US Constitution?

You should know that this specifically exposes your argument as a fraud, thus fatally flawed and no longer worthy of consideration by reasonable people.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And why should people be forced to live by the words of your god?

God isn't forcing anyone to live by his words.

God established the laws of nature and provided each individual with the means to choose to obey those laws and enjoy the benefits of having done so, or to reject those laws and suffer the consequences.

One has no need to accept it... that is simply how it is. Just as one cannot flap their arms and fly... one cannot choose to join with a person of their own gender... and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to the laws of nature; OKA: God's Law.

What you're trying to do is to reject God's law and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to such. Which is as foolish... as it is impossible, but it's your injuring of others, in leading them toward chaos, calamity and catastrophe... where you convict yourself.

For this, you will pay dearly. And you should know that claiming ignorance, will not be accepted as a viable defense.

That might be what you believe and you are free to live by those rules but I do not recognize your god so you have no right to tell me or anyone else how to live

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Thats because, a) you are stupid and, B) you are liberal. Our Founders were people who wanted smaller govt and it created the greatest country in human history by far.

Does the stupid stupid stupid liberal think it was coincidence that America became the greatest country in human history by far??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces.

100% stupid and liberal as always. You need a massive armed force to protect a country with a small govt or a large govt. Being for a small govt does not mean you want a small defense you near perfect record setting idiot!!OMG!!!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Those on the right who cry for a smaller government are wanting cuts to government agencies or their total disbandment with the hopes of a free market without checks and balances so that the market can screw and rip-off the consumer without the fear of being fined or penalized. They also seek the disbandment of agencies like the EPA (freedom to destroy our quality of air and water), the Department of Education (so the right can insert Creationism and God and Christianity in our children's curriculum), and the Department of Energy (so we don't pursue alternative energy and kiss the oil companies asses at the same time). I have to admit that there's one government agency that I would like to see downsized, and that's the DEA. We continue to imprison non violent drug offenders at a record rate, and it's to please the privatized "correctional" facilities. It's no different than the military industrial complex - they must continue to reap profits while lives are ruined and families are torn apart.

The two biggest threats to liberty are life-long appointed judges and bureaucracies. That's because either can create law and have no accountability.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Really? The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

The Founding Fathers made the BILL OF RIGHTS, and they made the Bill of Rights to be protected for ALL PEOPLE, not just the will of the majority. That was my point. It wasn't about whether they'd agree with the 14th or not.

Fine, marriage should have nothing to do with the govt.

However under the LAW the govt does get in on it, and it does offer things that you only get if you're married. Therefore gay people need to be able to get such things, and the only way to get such things is through marriage.

So, two choices. Govt gets out of marriage, or gay people can get married. Seeing as the former isn't going to happen, the latter is there.

I see, so the reason to allow gay marriage is because of government benefits?

Okay, so what if brother and sister want such benefits, should they be allowed to marry too?

How about father and daughter? I'm sure she could use that extra SS money after pop dies.

And let's not leave out the gay community: how about mother and daughter getting married? We certainly can't deny them any government benefits.

But I'm sure our founders would welcome these types of marriages so that nobody is left out of government benefits, don't you think?

The reason to allow gay marriage is because it's fair.

The theory of Human Rights basically dictates that you can do what you like as long as you don't hurt others. Brother and sister marrying is not allowed because any offspring from such a relationship is at risk, because for some biological reason bad things happen when children are born to such close relatives.

Also, when you marry you become related. You're already related as brother and sister. Therefore you don't need to get married to be related. Things like inheritance aren't a problem between siblings whereas they are for those who can't get married.

For example, a gay couple decided that the older one (by a year or two) would adopt the younger one in order to get the security they could not get because gay marriage had been unavailable.

Gay couple, one of whom adopted the other, has adoption vacated now that they can marry

"
Gay couple, one of whom adopted the other, has adoption vacated now that they can marry"

"So, in 2000, Novak adopted MacArthur – two years his junior – as his son. The move reduced their inheritance tax liability and gave them hospital visitation and other legal rights then unavailable to same-sex couples."

Inheritance tax is a massive issue.

How Marriage Inequality Prompts Gay Partners to Adopt One Another

"The couple told ABC News that they were primarily concerned about Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax, which could make one partner liable for a 15 percent tax on the estate (as opposed to 4 percent if they pushed ahead with adoption). "

An Overview of Federal Rights Granted to Married Couples | Human Rights Campaign

"There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law."

Wait a minute, I thought you said marriage was necessary because of government benefits; that we shouldn't be allowed to deny any people those benefits.

No, you are not "related" once you are married. You are simply two different people that took a religious vow or obtained a government sanction.

So you have marriage standards and limitations but others shouldn't? How is that right? If this is all about government benefits as you say, then no two people should be forbidden that right as you call it. For that matter, several people shouldn't be forbidden those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids if they get married. Well, why can't brother and sister have kids without being married? If that's the problem, then it okay that father and son get married, or sister and sister? You're okay with that, right?

It seems to me you are a hypocrite. Most of society wanted to limit marriage to one man and one woman, but those standards are not acceptable to you and others. You have no grounds to expand those standards that shouldn't apply to everybody else.

I'm not saying it all makes sense. It would be better if the govt stayed out of marriage altogether.

But marriage is the linking of two people. But brother and sister are already linked. You are linked. Clearly. Women in many European societies take on the surname of their partner and are considered by the state to be linked.

A brother and sister are "simply two different people" who happen to have the same parents.

Is it right? It's not necessarily fair that sister and brother should be kept apart. But that's the way of the world and it should be something that is encouraged for logical reasons. However, like I said, gay couples who couldn't marry ended up being adopted by the other in order to gain most of the important benefits, so, brother and sister, father and son, already have many of those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids without being married. However it's a matter of making sure that society sends the message that it is not okay for brother and sister to be together in such a relationship. Again, its biology, not necessarily fair.

It seems I'm a hypocrite huh? Well I'm sure you're one too.

You're looking for holes in an argument which will inherently have holes. Why? Because there are various parts to it that aren't necessarily compatible. However, like I've said, I'd prefer it if the govt stayed out of marriage and churches or institutions can decide who is married under their own house and nothing else matters. No benefits, not privileges.

If people want someone to inherit, then they merely write a legal document to say so.

However.... what we're talking about, and which you're trying to push, is what you might call a half way house.

If the govt is going to be a part of marriage, then it needs to abide by the 14th Amendment equality of the laws. Now, you say brother and sister should be able to marry, but under the law brother and sister already get lower inheritance tax and many of the other benefits. So.... is it unfair?

Society makes some things illegal. Murder is illegal. We discourage doing it by making laws. Brother and sister marrying is also discouraged for reasons I have said. It's not fair. It's life. Get over it. If you want that to be hypocritical, then so be it, I don't care.

However, which is better, fighting for the govt out of marriage and not getting anywhere, or having gay people able to marry and get the benefits and live their life as they so wish as the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights dictate?

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The theory of Human Rights basically dictates that you can do what you like as long as you don't hurt others.

So you're saying that the theory of human rights provides that one can't hurt others when you do what you want?

ROFLMNAO!

Therefore when two people of the same gender pretend to be people of opposite gender, illicitly impersonating the human biological imperative and use that deception as a means to undermine the cultural nucleus... thus injuring the viability of the entire culture, then those individual would therefore have no such right to do so.

So here we find a Leftist spouting one thing even as they claim the diametric opposite.

No, that's not what I said. Learn to read and learn to not insult people.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The theory of Human Rights basically dictates that you can do what you like as long as you don't hurt others.

So you're saying that the theory of human rights provides that one can't hurt others when you do what you want?

ROFLMNAO!

Therefore when two people of the same gender pretend to be people of opposite gender, illicitly impersonating the human biological imperative and use that deception as a means to undermine the cultural nucleus... thus injuring the viability of the entire culture, then those individual would therefore have no such right to do so.

So here we find a Leftist spouting one thing even as they claim the diametric opposite.

No, that's not what I said. Learn to read and learn to not insult people.

we have a civic duty to insult a frigid weirdo don't we, especially a liberal one -right??

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Pretty sure you should be able to discuss "small govt advocates" without it getting personal.
When it gets personal -- everybody pretty much has lost their wits.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The theory of Human Rights basically dictates that you can do what you like as long as you don't hurt others.

So you're saying that the theory of human rights provides that one can't hurt others when you do what you want?

ROFLMNAO!

Therefore when two people of the same gender pretend to be people of opposite gender, illicitly impersonating the human biological imperative and use that deception as a means to undermine the cultural nucleus... thus injuring the viability of the entire culture, then those individual would therefore have no such right to do so.

So here we find a Leftist spouting one thing even as they claim the diametric opposite.

No, that's not what I said. Learn to read and learn to not insult people.

You're an imbecile. I suggest you consult the words you set in writing, highlighted in Red, underlined and sized up to the maximum size, so as to make it easy for you to find. If a Crayon font was available, I'd have gone even to that length to make you feel more at home.

That's all that is within my power to help you understand.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

FTR: the OP set the assertion, then denied what they said... For the benefit of the intellectually less fortunate, DEBATE requires that the record be corrected and that the intellectual deficiency of the asserter... be duly noted.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Founding Fathers made the BILL OF RIGHTS, and they made the Bill of Rights to be protected for ALL PEOPLE, not just the will of the majority. That was my point. It wasn't about whether they'd agree with the 14th or not.

Fine, marriage should have nothing to do with the govt.

However under the LAW the govt does get in on it, and it does offer things that you only get if you're married. Therefore gay people need to be able to get such things, and the only way to get such things is through marriage.

So, two choices. Govt gets out of marriage, or gay people can get married. Seeing as the former isn't going to happen, the latter is there.

I see, so the reason to allow gay marriage is because of government benefits?

Okay, so what if brother and sister want such benefits, should they be allowed to marry too?

How about father and daughter? I'm sure she could use that extra SS money after pop dies.

And let's not leave out the gay community: how about mother and daughter getting married? We certainly can't deny them any government benefits.

But I'm sure our founders would welcome these types of marriages so that nobody is left out of government benefits, don't you think?

The reason to allow gay marriage is because it's fair.

The theory of Human Rights basically dictates that you can do what you like as long as you don't hurt others. Brother and sister marrying is not allowed because any offspring from such a relationship is at risk, because for some biological reason bad things happen when children are born to such close relatives.

Also, when you marry you become related. You're already related as brother and sister. Therefore you don't need to get married to be related. Things like inheritance aren't a problem between siblings whereas they are for those who can't get married.

For example, a gay couple decided that the older one (by a year or two) would adopt the younger one in order to get the security they could not get because gay marriage had been unavailable.

Gay couple, one of whom adopted the other, has adoption vacated now that they can marry

"
Gay couple, one of whom adopted the other, has adoption vacated now that they can marry"

"So, in 2000, Novak adopted MacArthur – two years his junior – as his son. The move reduced their inheritance tax liability and gave them hospital visitation and other legal rights then unavailable to same-sex couples."

Inheritance tax is a massive issue.

How Marriage Inequality Prompts Gay Partners to Adopt One Another

"The couple told ABC News that they were primarily concerned about Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax, which could make one partner liable for a 15 percent tax on the estate (as opposed to 4 percent if they pushed ahead with adoption). "

An Overview of Federal Rights Granted to Married Couples | Human Rights Campaign

"There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law."

Wait a minute, I thought you said marriage was necessary because of government benefits; that we shouldn't be allowed to deny any people those benefits.

No, you are not "related" once you are married. You are simply two different people that took a religious vow or obtained a government sanction.

So you have marriage standards and limitations but others shouldn't? How is that right? If this is all about government benefits as you say, then no two people should be forbidden that right as you call it. For that matter, several people shouldn't be forbidden those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids if they get married. Well, why can't brother and sister have kids without being married? If that's the problem, then it okay that father and son get married, or sister and sister? You're okay with that, right?

It seems to me you are a hypocrite. Most of society wanted to limit marriage to one man and one woman, but those standards are not acceptable to you and others. You have no grounds to expand those standards that shouldn't apply to everybody else.

I'm not saying it all makes sense. It would be better if the govt stayed out of marriage altogether.

But marriage is the linking of two people. But brother and sister are already linked. You are linked. Clearly. Women in many European societies take on the surname of their partner and are considered by the state to be linked.

A brother and sister are "simply two different people" who happen to have the same parents.

Is it right? It's not necessarily fair that sister and brother should be kept apart. But that's the way of the world and it should be something that is encouraged for logical reasons. However, like I said, gay couples who couldn't marry ended up being adopted by the other in order to gain most of the important benefits, so, brother and sister, father and son, already have many of those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids without being married. However it's a matter of making sure that society sends the message that it is not okay for brother and sister to be together in such a relationship. Again, its biology, not necessarily fair.

It seems I'm a hypocrite huh? Well I'm sure you're one too.

You're looking for holes in an argument which will inherently have holes. Why? Because there are various parts to it that aren't necessarily compatible. However, like I've said, I'd prefer it if the govt stayed out of marriage and churches or institutions can decide who is married under their own house and nothing else matters. No benefits, not privileges.

If people want someone to inherit, then they merely write a legal document to say so.

However.... what we're talking about, and which you're trying to push, is what you might call a half way house.

If the govt is going to be a part of marriage, then it needs to abide by the 14th Amendment equality of the laws. Now, you say brother and sister should be able to marry, but under the law brother and sister already get lower inheritance tax and many of the other benefits. So.... is it unfair?

Society makes some things illegal. Murder is illegal. We discourage doing it by making laws. Brother and sister marrying is also discouraged for reasons I have said. It's not fair. It's life. Get over it. If you want that to be hypocritical, then so be it, I don't care.

However, which is better, fighting for the govt out of marriage and not getting anywhere, or having gay people able to marry and get the benefits and live their life as they so wish as the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights dictate?

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And why should people be forced to live by the words of your god?

God isn't forcing anyone to live by his words.

God established the laws of nature and provided each individual with the means to choose to obey those laws and enjoy the benefits of having done so, or to reject those laws and suffer the consequences.

One has no need to accept it... that is simply how it is. Just as one cannot flap their arms and fly... one cannot choose to join with a person of their own gender... and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to the laws of nature; OKA: God's Law.

What you're trying to do is to reject God's law and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to such. Which is as foolish... as it is impossible, but it's your injuring of others, in leading them toward chaos, calamity and catastrophe... where you convict yourself.

For this, you will pay dearly. And you should know that claiming ignorance, will not be accepted as a viable defense.

Obviously people can choose to be homosexual

You do realize that there have been people with homosexual preferences ever since there have been people don't you?

Seems to me if you believe god made all those people by snapping his fingers that he knew some of them would be homosexual

 

[frigidweirdo]

The theory of Human Rights basically dictates that you can do what you like as long as you don't hurt others.

So you're saying that the theory of human rights provides that one can't hurt others when you do what you want?

ROFLMNAO!

Therefore when two people of the same gender pretend to be people of opposite gender, illicitly impersonating the human biological imperative and use that deception as a means to undermine the cultural nucleus... thus injuring the viability of the entire culture, then those individual would therefore have no such right to do so.

So here we find a Leftist spouting one thing even as they claim the diametric opposite.

No, that's not what I said. Learn to read and learn to not insult people.

You're an imbecile. I suggest you consult the words you set in writing, highlighted in Red, underlined and sized up to the maximum size, so as to make it easy for you to find. If a Crayon font was available, I'd have gone even to that length to make you feel more at home.

That's all that is within my power to help you understand.

On ignore, you're just an insulter with nothing to add to this forum. Bye.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I see, so the reason to allow gay marriage is because of government benefits?

Okay, so what if brother and sister want such benefits, should they be allowed to marry too?

How about father and daughter? I'm sure she could use that extra SS money after pop dies.

And let's not leave out the gay community: how about mother and daughter getting married? We certainly can't deny them any government benefits.

But I'm sure our founders would welcome these types of marriages so that nobody is left out of government benefits, don't you think?

The reason to allow gay marriage is because it's fair.

The theory of Human Rights basically dictates that you can do what you like as long as you don't hurt others. Brother and sister marrying is not allowed because any offspring from such a relationship is at risk, because for some biological reason bad things happen when children are born to such close relatives.

Also, when you marry you become related. You're already related as brother and sister. Therefore you don't need to get married to be related. Things like inheritance aren't a problem between siblings whereas they are for those who can't get married.

For example, a gay couple decided that the older one (by a year or two) would adopt the younger one in order to get the security they could not get because gay marriage had been unavailable.

Gay couple, one of whom adopted the other, has adoption vacated now that they can marry

"
Gay couple, one of whom adopted the other, has adoption vacated now that they can marry"

"So, in 2000, Novak adopted MacArthur – two years his junior – as his son. The move reduced their inheritance tax liability and gave them hospital visitation and other legal rights then unavailable to same-sex couples."

Inheritance tax is a massive issue.

How Marriage Inequality Prompts Gay Partners to Adopt One Another

"The couple told ABC News that they were primarily concerned about Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax, which could make one partner liable for a 15 percent tax on the estate (as opposed to 4 percent if they pushed ahead with adoption). "

An Overview of Federal Rights Granted to Married Couples | Human Rights Campaign

"There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law."

Wait a minute, I thought you said marriage was necessary because of government benefits; that we shouldn't be allowed to deny any people those benefits.

No, you are not "related" once you are married. You are simply two different people that took a religious vow or obtained a government sanction.

So you have marriage standards and limitations but others shouldn't? How is that right? If this is all about government benefits as you say, then no two people should be forbidden that right as you call it. For that matter, several people shouldn't be forbidden those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids if they get married. Well, why can't brother and sister have kids without being married? If that's the problem, then it okay that father and son get married, or sister and sister? You're okay with that, right?

It seems to me you are a hypocrite. Most of society wanted to limit marriage to one man and one woman, but those standards are not acceptable to you and others. You have no grounds to expand those standards that shouldn't apply to everybody else.

I'm not saying it all makes sense. It would be better if the govt stayed out of marriage altogether.

But marriage is the linking of two people. But brother and sister are already linked. You are linked. Clearly. Women in many European societies take on the surname of their partner and are considered by the state to be linked.

A brother and sister are "simply two different people" who happen to have the same parents.

Is it right? It's not necessarily fair that sister and brother should be kept apart. But that's the way of the world and it should be something that is encouraged for logical reasons. However, like I said, gay couples who couldn't marry ended up being adopted by the other in order to gain most of the important benefits, so, brother and sister, father and son, already have many of those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids without being married. However it's a matter of making sure that society sends the message that it is not okay for brother and sister to be together in such a relationship. Again, its biology, not necessarily fair.

It seems I'm a hypocrite huh? Well I'm sure you're one too.

You're looking for holes in an argument which will inherently have holes. Why? Because there are various parts to it that aren't necessarily compatible. However, like I've said, I'd prefer it if the govt stayed out of marriage and churches or institutions can decide who is married under their own house and nothing else matters. No benefits, not privileges.

If people want someone to inherit, then they merely write a legal document to say so.

However.... what we're talking about, and which you're trying to push, is what you might call a half way house.

If the govt is going to be a part of marriage, then it needs to abide by the 14th Amendment equality of the laws. Now, you say brother and sister should be able to marry, but under the law brother and sister already get lower inheritance tax and many of the other benefits. So.... is it unfair?

Society makes some things illegal. Murder is illegal. We discourage doing it by making laws. Brother and sister marrying is also discouraged for reasons I have said. It's not fair. It's life. Get over it. If you want that to be hypocritical, then so be it, I don't care.

However, which is better, fighting for the govt out of marriage and not getting anywhere, or having gay people able to marry and get the benefits and live their life as they so wish as the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights dictate?

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

 

[FA_Q2]

The reason to allow gay marriage is because it's fair.

The theory of Human Rights basically dictates that you can do what you like as long as you don't hurt others. Brother and sister marrying is not allowed because any offspring from such a relationship is at risk, because for some biological reason bad things happen when children are born to such close relatives.

Also, when you marry you become related. You're already related as brother and sister. Therefore you don't need to get married to be related. Things like inheritance aren't a problem between siblings whereas they are for those who can't get married.

For example, a gay couple decided that the older one (by a year or two) would adopt the younger one in order to get the security they could not get because gay marriage had been unavailable.

Gay couple, one of whom adopted the other, has adoption vacated now that they can marry

"
Gay couple, one of whom adopted the other, has adoption vacated now that they can marry"

"So, in 2000, Novak adopted MacArthur – two years his junior – as his son. The move reduced their inheritance tax liability and gave them hospital visitation and other legal rights then unavailable to same-sex couples."

Inheritance tax is a massive issue.

How Marriage Inequality Prompts Gay Partners to Adopt One Another

"The couple told ABC News that they were primarily concerned about Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax, which could make one partner liable for a 15 percent tax on the estate (as opposed to 4 percent if they pushed ahead with adoption). "

An Overview of Federal Rights Granted to Married Couples | Human Rights Campaign

"There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law."

Wait a minute, I thought you said marriage was necessary because of government benefits; that we shouldn't be allowed to deny any people those benefits.

No, you are not "related" once you are married. You are simply two different people that took a religious vow or obtained a government sanction.

So you have marriage standards and limitations but others shouldn't? How is that right? If this is all about government benefits as you say, then no two people should be forbidden that right as you call it. For that matter, several people shouldn't be forbidden those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids if they get married. Well, why can't brother and sister have kids without being married? If that's the problem, then it okay that father and son get married, or sister and sister? You're okay with that, right?

It seems to me you are a hypocrite. Most of society wanted to limit marriage to one man and one woman, but those standards are not acceptable to you and others. You have no grounds to expand those standards that shouldn't apply to everybody else.

I'm not saying it all makes sense. It would be better if the govt stayed out of marriage altogether.

But marriage is the linking of two people. But brother and sister are already linked. You are linked. Clearly. Women in many European societies take on the surname of their partner and are considered by the state to be linked.

A brother and sister are "simply two different people" who happen to have the same parents.

Is it right? It's not necessarily fair that sister and brother should be kept apart. But that's the way of the world and it should be something that is encouraged for logical reasons. However, like I said, gay couples who couldn't marry ended up being adopted by the other in order to gain most of the important benefits, so, brother and sister, father and son, already have many of those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids without being married. However it's a matter of making sure that society sends the message that it is not okay for brother and sister to be together in such a relationship. Again, its biology, not necessarily fair.

It seems I'm a hypocrite huh? Well I'm sure you're one too.

You're looking for holes in an argument which will inherently have holes. Why? Because there are various parts to it that aren't necessarily compatible. However, like I've said, I'd prefer it if the govt stayed out of marriage and churches or institutions can decide who is married under their own house and nothing else matters. No benefits, not privileges.

If people want someone to inherit, then they merely write a legal document to say so.

However.... what we're talking about, and which you're trying to push, is what you might call a half way house.

If the govt is going to be a part of marriage, then it needs to abide by the 14th Amendment equality of the laws. Now, you say brother and sister should be able to marry, but under the law brother and sister already get lower inheritance tax and many of the other benefits. So.... is it unfair?

Society makes some things illegal. Murder is illegal. We discourage doing it by making laws. Brother and sister marrying is also discouraged for reasons I have said. It's not fair. It's life. Get over it. If you want that to be hypocritical, then so be it, I don't care.

However, which is better, fighting for the govt out of marriage and not getting anywhere, or having gay people able to marry and get the benefits and live their life as they so wish as the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights dictate?

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

Then the conversation about marriage being recognized across any relationship is a misnomer. Why bring it up then? That is dishonest in its presentation. You openly support marriage rights only being offered to those that agree with your lifestyle.

That is not only big government but also rather anti-freedom. It is the core problem with giving the government a say or morality or doling out 'rights' - at some point in time you are no longer going to agree with that morality.

We can do 2 things here - remove the government from marriage entirely (no more benefits derived from marrying) OR we can recognize whatever marriage 2 adults wish to enter into. I really do not care what direction it goes in but I certainly cannot support the government selectively giving benefits out to only those that it agrees are living 'properly.'