"Smaller government" advocates

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... Why shouldn't someone be able to marry cow?

Consent, that's the main answer. A cow can't consent to marry. Just like children can't consent to marry. It's quite simple.

Last I heard, gay people were able to say yes.

LOL!

Isn't it wild how 'children' always enter into the equation somehow, with these people?

Now Reader, watch this closely...

Frigidweirdo, the APA issued a white paper; now over a decade back, wherein they 'found' that 'some children may actually benefit from a sexual relationship with a loving, caring adult', further concluding that children may well be suited to sexual consent much earlier than had been previously understood.

Now... you being a professed sexual deviant; meaning you're a person who bears little self control over whatever sexual urges flitter through your head... where do you stand in the Left's drive to defend the 14th amendment rights of a child to equal protection before the law, particularly with regard to their means to consent to sex with adults, given the growing scientific evidence that children are often capable of sexual consent, thus legalizing adults to pursue children for loving, caring relationships?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is nothing but a property contract

My goodness... The Federal Government only licensed degeneracy and look at consequence of such, in just 6 MONTHS!

 

[Skylar]

You openly support marriage rights only being offered to those that agree with your lifestyle.

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman. It's called The Biological Imperative. Look it up... .

Be careful to fully consider the word "imperative" and note that its weight registers in an entirely superior to the 'choice', with regard to one's lifestyle.

What you want marriage to be is irrelevant.

Without regard to what I want, or what you want...

Nature defines Marriage as: The Joining of One Man and One Woman. This being demonstrated through the Biological imperative, wherein Nature designed the human species (and all mammals) with two distinct, but complementing genders, each specifically designed to join with the other. ]

Nope. There is no marriage in 'nature'. There is only marriage within human societies as we invented it and we define it. It is whatever we say it is. As its our creation.

That you recognize that this is irrefutable... inarguable and otherwise irrepressible, SHOULD BE sufficient to turn you from your former position and toward that inalterable reality.

Your personal opinion isn't 'irrefutable', nor 'inarguable' nor 'reality'. Its just your opinion. You've deluded yourself into believing that anything you think, anything at all, is objective fact.

Its simply not so. Your subjective opinions are not objective reality, no matter how many times you type 'irrefutable'. Its just you, citing you, making an argument that can't withstand an even passing application of logic or reason.

the pot calling the kettle black

I'm rubber. You're glue. It bounces off me and sticks on you.

Now that we've done school yard silliness, would you care to actually address the points I raised. Or is holding your breath until you turn blue the extent of your rhetorical prowess?

 

[theHawk]

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

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

1) The US Armed forces are not "government". They do not rule or dictate law upon US citizens in any way. Just because something is funded by taxpayer dollars, does not make it a governing body.

2) No conservative has ever advocated a "ban" on gay marriage. The only laws passed were ones saying that we don't have to recognize a gay marriage as marriage in the eyes of the law. Nothing was ever suggested to ban the ceremony or keeping queers from having whatever relations they want with each other. Forced gay marriage recognition is an example of government trying to force the people into accepting gay marriage as a legitimate marriage.

3) As for marijuana, I don't think half of us conservatives really care one way or another. If people want to be stupid and get high all day on it, let them.

4) The farm thing, I'm not a fan of paying people not to produce. I think both parties have a hand in that though. I haven't heard a Dem run on a platform of cutting farming subsidies.

5) Big corporations "subsidies" are largely a myth. Big oil is the best example. They do not get many special tax breaks at all, they simply get the same tax benefits of any manufacturing company. There are plenty of tax breaks for industries that Dems defend. But the bottom line is, there isn't any tax dollars being given to these companies at all.

 

[Skylar]

... Why shouldn't someone be able to marry cow?

Consent, that's the main answer. A cow can't consent to marry. Just like children can't consent to marry. It's quite simple.

Last I heard, gay people were able to say yes.

LOL!

Isn't it wild how 'children' always enter into the equation somehow, with these people?

Now Reader, watch this closely...

Frigidweirdo, the APA issued a white paper; now over a decade back, wherein they 'found' that 'some children may actually benefit from a sexual relationship with a loving, caring adult', further concluding that children may well be suited to sexual consent much earlier than had been previously understood.

Can you quote the APA coming to this conclusion? Or is this something you just heard?

If its a white paper, it shouldn't be particularly long. So it will be easy for you to post.

Now... you being a professed sexual deviant; meaning you're a person who bears little self control over whatever sexual urges flitter through your head... where do you stand in the Left's drive to defend the 14th amendment rights of a child to equal protection before the law, particularly with regard to their means to consent to sex with adults, given the growing scientific evidence that children are often capable of sexual consent, thus legalizing adults to pursue children for loving, caring relationships?

Who is making this argument? So far its you.....and who?

You didn't just double down on the strawman fallacy again did you?

 

[Skylar]

So? What's your point? Religious law was civil law long before secular governments even existed too. Priests could summarily have you executed for heresy answerable to no one but the church. Churches used to keep birth, tax and death records too.

We've moved on.

Nonsense. You're simply stating your opinion. You're not giving us a why. Why shouldn't the government recognize marriage? Why shouldn't it protect it? Why shouldn't secular law define it under the law?

Again, religious laws are completely intact. Catholics don't have to recognize a couple married under secular law as married under Catholic law. Neither do Muslims, Mormons, Jedi, or Pastafarians.

We have a non-secular equivalent: marriage. And if civil unions are genuinely identical....why the need for them?

Simple: they aren't equal. Which is the point. Separate but equal has a lousy track record. If marriage and civil unions were genuinely identical there would be no need for the distinction.

Your solution is complicated, pointless, duplicitous, and completely unnecessary. Which is why weren't not using it.

Yeah, it only honors that 1st Amendment thingy....you know " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"....which is exactly what they did when they got their butts involved in the religious rite of marriage. (I have been getting a giggle over your obvious confusion over a "rite" and a "right"). According to your own words, the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment binding on the States...so there ya go.

Huh? If I get a civil marriage....how does that deprive you of any 1st amendment right? It doesn't. You have no 'why' in insisting that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. You simply insist it should be so.

That's not good enough. Not by half.

This entire debate....and all the division, ugliness and bullshit it has caused and still is causing...is what is pointless and could have been easily avoided by simply giving civil unions the same legal rights as marriage.

So your solution is to invalid ALL marriage certificates, elmiinatre all marriage law and all legal recognition of marriage......just to keep the gays from getting married?

That's ridiculous. Its wildly complicated, utterly pointless and completely unnecessary. Especially since you've admitted that civil unions and marriage would be identical. If they are genuinely identical, we don't need civil unions.

Here's a much simpler solution: legally recognize same sex marriages. And done.

It deprives you of no right. It doesn't effect you. And it leaves your religious right to not recognize their marriage under religious law perfectly intact. As your religious law is gloriously irrelevant to the recognition of civil marriage under civil law.

Well.....if two cousins marry, how does that effect you? How about brother and sister? How about father and daughter? None of these kinds of marriages bother you, so because it doesn't have anything to do with your life, should our government sanction such marriages?

If you want to make an argument for incest marriage, feel free.

Just asking a question; seems like one you are trying to avoid an answer to.

Like I said....if you feel incest marriage should be legal, feel free to present your argument for it. I'm not making the argument for you.

 

[Skylar]

No marriage existed as a religious right long before secular governments even existed.

So? What's your point? Religious law was civil law long before secular governments even existed too. Priests could summarily have you executed for heresy answerable to no one but the church. Churches used to keep birth, tax and death records too.

We've moved on.

Government has no business in it, never did, never will.

Nonsense. You're simply stating your opinion. You're not giving us a why. Why shouldn't the government recognize marriage? Why shouldn't it protect it? Why shouldn't secular law define it under the law?

Again, religious laws are completely intact. Catholics don't have to recognize a couple married under secular law as married under Catholic law. Neither do Muslims, Mormons, Jedi, or Pastafarians.

If they want a non-secular equivalent, then use what we already have...civil unions...and make them legally identical. Not rocket surgery...if you want to provide true equality rather than division and strife.

We have a non-secular equivalent: marriage. And if civil unions are genuinely identical....why the need for them?

Simple: they aren't equal. Which is the point. Separate but equal has a lousy track record. If marriage and civil unions were genuinely identical there would be no need for the distinction.

Your solution is complicated, pointless, duplicitous, and completely unnecessary. Which is why weren't not using it.

Yeah, it only honors that 1st Amendment thingy....you know " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"....which is exactly what they did when they got their butts involved in the religious rite of marriage. (I have been getting a giggle over your obvious confusion over a "rite" and a "right"). According to your own words, the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment binding on the States...so there ya go.

This entire debate....and all the division, ugliness and bullshit it has caused and still is causing...is what is pointless and could have been easily avoided by simply giving civil unions the same legal rights as marriage. But that's what big government does to protect us...they over-complicate things to the point where we are at each other's throats.

Well Civil Unions didn't work. After all, who complained the most about not being able to get married? The people in California who had civil unions.

The Civil Unions didn't work because they weren't identical. Again, your argument is inherently self defeating. As if Civil Unions were genuinely identical to marriage....then there's need for Civil Unions. As marriage is identical to it. Thus, the secular equivalent of marriage....is marriage.

Its only when Civil Unions are NOT equal that your argument works. And of course, that inequality dooms Civil Unions just as thoroughly.

This has less to do with happiness, equal rights, or even government benefits. What this really has to do with is rejection. Some gays have always felt rejection of society no matter what we changed for them in the past. In their minds, if they can force marriage upon society, then it makes them feel like society accepts them better. There is no truth to that of course, but that's how they think.

It has to do with equal rights and equal benefits. With same sex couples demanding (and realizing) their marriages be treated equally under the law to opposite sex marriages.

Let me put it this way: if there were no such thing as marriage in our country, would the gays be any less happier today not being married? Of course not. The only real reason they wanted to be married in the first place is because normal people were able to.

If there were no marriage in this country then there would be no benefits associated with marriage. Legally, people could never become family to one another outside of adoption or direct relation. Marriage provides a legal way to do this. Allowing a couple (same sex or opposite sex) to become family to one another. And to enjoy all the rights and priveledges associated with that legal connection.

Given that this legal capacity does exist, of course same sex couples would want access to it.

Besides the fact that Civil Unions didn't entail the invasion of normal people's marriage, what is the difference?

What 'invasion'? How is your marriage 'invaded' by anyone else getting married? This is the part that makes no sense. A gay couple in say, Connecticut gets married. And your marriage changes....how? You're effected....how?

Are you suddenly married to the Connecticut couple? Do they now have 'marital rights' to your wife? Do they acquire inheritance rights over your property when you die?

Or......is their marriage pristinely irrelevant to your own? We both know the answer. Your entire invasion argument is just silly. As another couples marriage has nothing to do with your own. Utterly destroying your silly 'invading marriage' nonsense.

Next fallacy please.

What could married people do that others in civil unions couldn't do that a good lawyer could straighten out?

Why would those in Civil Unions need a good lawyer to 'straighten' things out if Civil Unions and Marriage were identical?

Your 'separate but equal' rhetoric is starting to come unraveled. As its becoming increasingly obvious that even *you* understand that civil unions and marriage aren't identical. And aren't equal. Which is why I've argued that the 'civil union' argument is duplicitous.

And here we go.....right back down to government benefits. It seems that was the courts main issue--not the problem of being right or wrong. And speaking of rights, it's those government goodies that made marriage a right as well; not that I agree with it of course because single people don't have those government benefits, therefore single people are being denied rights.

Government benefits are part of an entire package of rights and priveledges associated with marriage. Why wouldn't same sex couples want the entire packages? Why would they accept half a loaf when they have every right to the whole loaf.

Explain it to us. If you can't explain why they would choose to go through the needless complication of hiring lawyers to 'straighten things out', accept the 'separate but obviously not equal' status of civil unions, give up on becoming legal family outside of adoption or direct relation, and of course give up all the benefits, rights and priveledges that sit outside of civil unions (which many states don't recognize)....

......then your 'the only reason gays want marriage is legitimacy' argument goes down the tubes. As there are clearly many other reasons.

 

[rightwinger]

... Marriage is a joke, it's meaningless except for some tax breaks like with inheritance laws. As in institution it's a joke. ...

Anyone need anything else to know where the Left is on Marriage?

Now we're seeing this on a routine basis... throughout the cult, more and more queers are admitting publicly that they have no respect for marriage.

So... knowing that, would you would-be 'moderates' be as considerate of their feelings in demanding that what the Left has left of marriage be stripped away?

There are few ways that the cult could more accurately confess to their intent... .

How has same sex marriage impacted your own marriage?

 

[Skylar]

... Marriage is a joke, it's meaningless except for some tax breaks like with inheritance laws. As in institution it's a joke. ...

Anyone need anything else to know where the Left is on Marriage?

Now we're seeing this on a routine basis... throughout the cult, more and more queers are admitting publicly that they have no respect for marriage.

So... knowing that, would you would-be 'moderates' be as considerate of their feelings in demanding that what the Left has left of marriage be stripped away?

There are few ways that the cult could more accurately confess to their intent... .

How has same sex marriage impacted your own marriage?

Apparently the 'legitimacy' of Keyes' marriage is dependent on his ability to deny marriage to someone else.

Doesn't sound like much of a union, to be honest with you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Or we can just recognize the source of the angst as bing that of irrational fools, who are incapable of objective reason, this they're unable of recognizing that Marriage is defined by the laws of nature; specifically human physiology... wherein two distinct but complementing genders, with each respectively designed to join with the other.

That is a mere rationalization in showing governmental benefits on one group by taking from another.

Call it natural all you want - it is not for the government to support one group that does things 'correctly.' Not if you truly believe that the government should stay out of our business.

We, the People... are "the Government". And we, The People are duty bound to encourage those things which promote a sound culture.

Sound families, in sync with Nature's design. A design established due to all of the above reasons. There are few ways for we, the People have few ways of promoting such over a large scale... and monetary benefits for those who form natural families... is the best way of doing that.

That means that as a people, it is essential to encourage, thus reward good behavior; which is to say behavior that conforms with natural law. Just as we want to discourage bad behavior; which is behavior which deviates from natural law.

THAT means that as a people, we want to discourage sexual deviancy... NOT encourage it.

What the US Supreme Legislature did was a catastrophic failure of the judicial system.

On the irrepressible recognition that this represents what is OKA: The Biological Imperative, and that such comes with great benefit to the species... the importance of which stands well above the abyss of irrational need of a tiny minority of weak minded freaks, whose very existence represents inviability.

Which for those keeping score, is something a viable culture needs to avoid.

A 'viable' culture simply needs to let people live as they will without putting others at risk/limiting their rights.

So you're fuzzy on the meaning of "viable"... .

Let me help ya through this. Viable: capable of working successfully; feasible.

The human species was designed with two distinct but complementing genders. That's viability as DEFINED BY NATURE ITSELF.

That such doesn't recognize deviancy as normality... assures feasibility.

I think the gay rights advocates, hypocritically, show no sympathy for single people. Why should people receive tax benefits solely because of their relationship status.................THAT is unfair..............and if the court ruled as it did it should have also made sure no tax benefits could be allowed based solely on marriage status.............they did not which shows one flaw in their reasoning.

Beautiful... yet ANOTHER self evident flaw in the latest whim of the Supreme Legislature has been well noted.

Well said.

It really is not a flaw in the ruling at all. It is a fundamental flaw with the government being allowed to give benefits to one group of people to the exclusion of others/

Where one group of people promote a sound culture and another undermines a culture's viability... the people promoting sound behavior stand superior to the deviants.

And THAT is simply the nature, of Nature.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Or we can just recognize the source of the angst as bing that of irrational fools, who are incapable of objective reason, this they're unable of recognizing that Marriage is defined by the laws of nature; specifically human physiology... wherein two distinct but complementing genders, with each respectively designed to join with the other.

That is a mere rationalization in showing governmental benefits on one group by taking from another.

Call it natural all you want - it is not for the government to support one group that does things 'correctly.' Not if you truly believe that the government should stay out of our business.

We, the People... are "the Government". And we, The People are duty bound to encourage those things which promote a sound culture.

You're not 'the People', Keyes. You're just you. And your assumptions aren't shared by most folks. Nor can you factually, logically or rationally support your 'promote a sound culture' argument regarding gays.

For example, you've stated that the acceptance of gays inevitably leads to a society's collapse.....insisting that every society that does this has collapsed. But virtually every society that didn't has also collapsed. Eliminating any 'cause and effect'.

It would be like insisting that if you eat bread you will eventually die. But if you don't eat bread, you'll also eventually die. And then laughably concluding that bread is what causes death.

Its a comic, child like application of logic. And its your argument. You can't even explain narratively how gays would 'cause' the collapse of a civilization. You merely assert it.

Sound families, in sync with Nature's design. A design established due to all of the above reasons. There are few ways for we, the People have few ways of promoting such over a large scale... and monetary benefits for those who form natural families... is the best way of doing that.

Nature doesn't have a thing to say about marriage. As contrary to your bizarre claim, sex and marriage aren't the same thing. It entirely possible to have one without the other. One is not the 'consequence' of the other. Nor does sex serve the sole purpose of procreation.

If your argument were factually valid, then only fertile couples would be allowed to be married. With those mariages ending the moment they pair could no longer breed. And every act of sex between couldn't result in children would be an abomination. Head would be an abomination. Masturbation would be an abomination. Sex after menopause would be an abomination.

Even the strictest of Catholic dogma doesn't follow that line of logic. Yet its yours. Based on you citing you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Marriage is nothing but a property contract

My goodness... The Federal Government only licensed degeneracy and look at consequence of such, in just 6 MONTHS!

That;s the legal definition

There is no need to imbue it with superstitious shit

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're not 'the People', Keyes. You're just you. And your assumptions aren't shared by most folks.

ROFLMNAO!

Isn't it ADORABLE how the Left always runs home to Momma?

IF humanity were suddenly struck incapable of appealing to popularity, the Ideological left would be MUTE from that instant... .

Effectively what it (The Queer Cult) is saying, is: 'most people are not interested in promoting a sound culture through the encouragement of sound behavior.'

Anyone need anything else?

Of course, in truth, when polled in the only poll that matters in a republic... the polls done on election day... and the polls which come after a long debates of matters of public policy... then the big poll, where the Chief Executive of the respective states are polled, wherein they sign the Legislation, which was passed by a majority of the Legislators, who were elected by a majority of the voters, in the majority of the states ... wherein the Polls stated time and again: that MOST PEOPLE SUPPORT NATURE'S DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, AS IT DEFINED SUCH THROUGH ITS DESIGN OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.

Now we have dozens of posts from the above contributor, whose chronic appeal is to popularity, effectively claiming that popularity is the essence of logical validity, celebrating the five people on a nine member panel who overturned the democratic legislative will of the people.

So... in that one instance, we see that what it claims to hold as an unwavering principle... is absolute drivel, she turns on her own stated principle, when it serves her own subjective needs.

Thus, it recognizes no principle.

The simple truth of the matter is that this is not the first time that homosexuals have been accepted into open society by a culture. The ancient greeks did it, the Romans did it, the Japanese Samurai culture and such was a consistent theme in the royal courts of France and quite consistently such has preceded the fall of all of the respective republics of France since the late 18th century... .

The one consistent theme in each and everyone of these cultures is that they're all GONE.

The breakdown of morality, the acceptance of deviant behavior, the rejection of sound principle... all leads to the rampant corruption of every facet of society... infecting and rotting everything from the highest offices of government, down through, to the breakdown of the culture's center; that which binds it all together: The Family Unit. Everything is corrupted... everything is ruined... and discredited.

Homosexuality, we're told, has been with humanity from 'the very beginning'.

I find no reason to not accept that... given what homosexuality is.

We're also told that 'Homosexuality is perfectly normal'... that it's 'merely another approach to human sexuality'. That it's innocuous; presenting no threat to anyone. That 'Homosexuals are just normal people looking to do normal things, just like everyone else'.

What makes the point so interesting to me, is why, given the assurances noted above and that homosexuals have always been among us, for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years..., WHY HAS HOMOSEXUALITY BEEN FORBIDDEN IN ALMOST EVERY CULTURE ON EARTH, FOR THE ENTIRETY OF HUMAN EXISTENCE?

WHY HAVEN'T HOMOSEXUALS BEEN JUST A NORMAL PART OF EVERY CULTURE, WIDELY ACCEPTED BY RELIGION, GOVERNMENT, AND ALL OF THE OTHER FACETS OF SOCIETY?

My guess is that ancient civilizations did NOT find that 'Homosexuals are just normal people looking to do normal things, just like everyone else'.

My guess is that ancient civilizations discovered that accepting sexual deviancy results in: 'most people are not interested in promoting a sound culture through the encouragement of sound behavior.'

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is nothing but a property contract

My goodness... The Federal Government only licensed degeneracy and look at consequence of such, in just 6 MONTHS!

That;s the legal definition

There is no need to imbue it with superstitious shit

LOL!

So human physiology is superstition?

Reader... do you see how pathetic it gets when Relativism infects the mind? Even science can't be trusted.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So? What's your point? Religious law was civil law long before secular governments even existed too. Priests could summarily have you executed for heresy answerable to no one but the church. Churches used to keep birth, tax and death records too.

We've moved on.

Nonsense. You're simply stating your opinion. You're not giving us a why. Why shouldn't the government recognize marriage? Why shouldn't it protect it? Why shouldn't secular law define it under the law?

Again, religious laws are completely intact. Catholics don't have to recognize a couple married under secular law as married under Catholic law. Neither do Muslims, Mormons, Jedi, or Pastafarians.

We have a non-secular equivalent: marriage. And if civil unions are genuinely identical....why the need for them?

Simple: they aren't equal. Which is the point. Separate but equal has a lousy track record. If marriage and civil unions were genuinely identical there would be no need for the distinction.

Your solution is complicated, pointless, duplicitous, and completely unnecessary. Which is why weren't not using it.

Yeah, it only honors that 1st Amendment thingy....you know " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"....which is exactly what they did when they got their butts involved in the religious rite of marriage. (I have been getting a giggle over your obvious confusion over a "rite" and a "right"). According to your own words, the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment binding on the States...so there ya go.

This entire debate....and all the division, ugliness and bullshit it has caused and still is causing...is what is pointless and could have been easily avoided by simply giving civil unions the same legal rights as marriage. But that's what big government does to protect us...they over-complicate things to the point where we are at each other's throats.

Well Civil Unions didn't work. After all, who complained the most about not being able to get married? The people in California who had civil unions.

The Civil Unions didn't work because they weren't identical. Again, your argument is inherently self defeating. As if Civil Unions were genuinely identical to marriage....then there's need for Civil Unions. As marriage is identical to it. Thus, the secular equivalent of marriage....is marriage.

Its only when Civil Unions are NOT equal that your argument works. And of course, that inequality dooms Civil Unions just as thoroughly.

This has less to do with happiness, equal rights, or even government benefits. What this really has to do with is rejection. Some gays have always felt rejection of society no matter what we changed for them in the past. In their minds, if they can force marriage upon society, then it makes them feel like society accepts them better. There is no truth to that of course, but that's how they think.

It has to do with equal rights and equal benefits. With same sex couples demanding (and realizing) their marriages be treated equally under the law to opposite sex marriages.

Let me put it this way: if there were no such thing as marriage in our country, would the gays be any less happier today not being married? Of course not. The only real reason they wanted to be married in the first place is because normal people were able to.

If there were no marriage in this country then there would be no benefits associated with marriage. Legally, people could never become family to one another outside of adoption or direct relation. Marriage provides a legal way to do this. Allowing a couple (same sex or opposite sex) to become family to one another. And to enjoy all the rights and priveledges associated with that legal connection.

Given that this legal capacity does exist, of course same sex couples would want access to it.

Besides the fact that Civil Unions didn't entail the invasion of normal people's marriage, what is the difference?

What 'invasion'? How is your marriage 'invaded' by anyone else getting married? This is the part that makes no sense. A gay couple in say, Connecticut gets married. And your marriage changes....how? You're effected....how?

Are you suddenly married to the Connecticut couple? Do they now have 'marital rights' to your wife? Do they acquire inheritance rights over your property when you die?

Or......is their marriage pristinely irrelevant to your own? We both know the answer. Your entire invasion argument is just silly. As another couples marriage has nothing to do with your own. Utterly destroying your silly 'invading marriage' nonsense.

Next fallacy please.

What could married people do that others in civil unions couldn't do that a good lawyer could straighten out?

Why would those in Civil Unions need a good lawyer to 'straighten' things out if Civil Unions and Marriage were identical?

Your 'separate but equal' rhetoric is starting to come unraveled. As its becoming increasingly obvious that even *you* understand that civil unions and marriage aren't identical. And aren't equal. Which is why I've argued that the 'civil union' argument is duplicitous.

And here we go.....right back down to government benefits. It seems that was the courts main issue--not the problem of being right or wrong. And speaking of rights, it's those government goodies that made marriage a right as well; not that I agree with it of course because single people don't have those government benefits, therefore single people are being denied rights.

Government benefits are part of an entire package of rights and priveledges associated with marriage. Why wouldn't same sex couples want the entire packages? Why would they accept half a loaf when they have every right to the whole loaf.

Explain it to us. If you can't explain why they would choose to go through the needless complication of hiring lawyers to 'straighten things out', accept the 'separate but obviously not equal' status of civil unions, give up on becoming legal family outside of adoption or direct relation, and of course give up all the benefits, rights and priveledges that sit outside of civil unions (which many states don't recognize)....

......then your 'the only reason gays want marriage is legitimacy' argument goes down the tubes. As there are clearly many other reasons.

What I asked is what does marriage have that civil unions don't, and you didn't answer. But even if there were a thing or two, that can be worked out by a lawyer which is the only reason I brought it up.

Yes, I use the word "invasion" and I used it properly. That's because marriage always was the union of one man and one woman. It's our institution. When somebody intrudes on that institution, yes, it's an invasion. It's similar to a woman attending a mens club, or a nun going to a Mosque.

Government benefits are not part of the package, they are the entire package. That's what the court ruled on. What other benefits and privileges do married couples have other than government benefits?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, it only honors that 1st Amendment thingy....you know " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"....which is exactly what they did when they got their butts involved in the religious rite of marriage. (I have been getting a giggle over your obvious confusion over a "rite" and a "right"). According to your own words, the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment binding on the States...so there ya go.

Huh? If I get a civil marriage....how does that deprive you of any 1st amendment right? It doesn't. You have no 'why' in insisting that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. You simply insist it should be so.

That's not good enough. Not by half.

This entire debate....and all the division, ugliness and bullshit it has caused and still is causing...is what is pointless and could have been easily avoided by simply giving civil unions the same legal rights as marriage.

So your solution is to invalid ALL marriage certificates, elmiinatre all marriage law and all legal recognition of marriage......just to keep the gays from getting married?

That's ridiculous. Its wildly complicated, utterly pointless and completely unnecessary. Especially since you've admitted that civil unions and marriage would be identical. If they are genuinely identical, we don't need civil unions.

Here's a much simpler solution: legally recognize same sex marriages. And done.

It deprives you of no right. It doesn't effect you. And it leaves your religious right to not recognize their marriage under religious law perfectly intact. As your religious law is gloriously irrelevant to the recognition of civil marriage under civil law.

Well.....if two cousins marry, how does that effect you? How about brother and sister? How about father and daughter? None of these kinds of marriages bother you, so because it doesn't have anything to do with your life, should our government sanction such marriages?

If you want to make an argument for incest marriage, feel free.

Just asking a question; seems like one you are trying to avoid an answer to.

Like I said....if you feel incest marriage should be legal, feel free to present your argument for it. I'm not making the argument for you.

I said nothing of the kind. What I did was ask several questions, and this is the second time you avoided them.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Huh? If I get a civil marriage....how does that deprive you of any 1st amendment right? It doesn't. You have no 'why' in insisting that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. You simply insist it should be so.

That's not good enough. Not by half.

So your solution is to invalid ALL marriage certificates, elmiinatre all marriage law and all legal recognition of marriage......just to keep the gays from getting married?

That's ridiculous. Its wildly complicated, utterly pointless and completely unnecessary. Especially since you've admitted that civil unions and marriage would be identical. If they are genuinely identical, we don't need civil unions.

Here's a much simpler solution: legally recognize same sex marriages. And done.

It deprives you of no right. It doesn't effect you. And it leaves your religious right to not recognize their marriage under religious law perfectly intact. As your religious law is gloriously irrelevant to the recognition of civil marriage under civil law.

Well.....if two cousins marry, how does that effect you? How about brother and sister? How about father and daughter? None of these kinds of marriages bother you, so because it doesn't have anything to do with your life, should our government sanction such marriages?

If you want to make an argument for incest marriage, feel free.

Just asking a question; seems like one you are trying to avoid an answer to.

Like I said....if you feel incest marriage should be legal, feel free to present your argument for it. I'm not making the argument for you.

I said nothing of the kind. What I did was ask several questions, and this is the second time you avoided them.

It does that: A LOT!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What do I want to dish out? I don't want to dish out anything. I just happen to believe that marriage is the institution of one man and one woman. That's not dishing anything out. It's just like calling my chair a chair. Sure, I could call my chair a fire hydrant, but that doesn't make it a fire hydrant. It's still a chair.

You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters. Marriage is not a right, it's a religious rite that was adopted by the government in order to provide benefits to the normal family. And no, Don, Sam and their adopted son is not a normal family.

Fine, you believe something. Is that belief enough to stop people from marrying when it is contrary to your belief? No it isn't.

Why is marriage not a right? Who decides whether it is a right or not?

It's a religious rite? Well that changed a long time ago, didn't it? Non-Religious people get married and the govt has been handing out benefits to married people for a long time too.

Things change, you can go with the times or you can be left behind.

If that's changing with the times, I would rather be left behind. I would rather stand my ground than be complicit in the decay of morality just because it happens to be popular. So what happens if we end up with a Democrat President the next few decades that loads up our Supreme Court with liberals that decide it's not our Constitutional right to own firearms? Will you change with the times willingly? Or the other way with conservative Presidents who load up the Supreme Court with other conservatives that rules abortion is murder and therefore illegal? Still want to change with the times?

I have no doubt many people, throughout history, would like to be left behind.

If you ever read an author like Borges, then perhaps you see why death and growing old is an important part of life. It allows for change that those who are older just don't want.

Decay in morality huh? The first 90 years of the USA had slavery, the next 90 years had segregation, throughout history black people, gay people etc have been treated with disdain, and you're talking to me about MORALITY?

The constitution protects the right to own guns. It also protects people from the mob rule of govt that often wants to treat people differently.

If something is right, I will be in favor of it. If it is wrong, I am against it. I didn't say everyone supported the changing of the times, but the changing of the times is what it is. In the US the changing of the times goes both good and bad. Good in that people's freedoms are being recognized, even when many are against other people having freedom, in the name of morality, but at the same time politics is becoming an absolute partisan joke.

I see, so what you're saying is that when guns and abortions become illegal because of "changing times" you will go right along with the program, won't you? I mean, you're going to die off anyway so that future generations can setup their own idea of liberty in this country. Who knows, you may even be alive to witness the first dog and woman marriage after the SC rules it constitutional........you know, changing times and all.

In our ever changing times, it no longer matters what the Constitution says or the intent of our founders, what matters is how judges interpret the Constitution. The way they interpret the Constitution is the law of the land. Unfortunately in many cases, it's usually partisan.

Then again the times are changing AWAY from repressive policies, not towards. That is the point. You're getting all annoyed at things which are progressing away from people being restricted.

You think people are setting up new ideas of liberty? The reality is this liberty has been around for 150 years, it's just not been implemented properly.

Why you have an issue with two consenting adults getting married is beyond me. It doesn't harm you in any way at all. You say it's about morals. But then morals have changed and for the better.

I never said it was just about morals. I also said it doesn't create a good environment for children as well. I also said marriage is not a right because if it were, marriage would be included in the US Constitution.

And BTW, I don't get annoyed when discussing politics or issues. If I came here to get annoyed, that would be stupid on my part.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct, but it's like cancer. Soon it will make all marriages a joke.

Like with a 50% divorce rate.

Oh, wait, that happened BEFORE gay marriage was legalized in the whole country.

Straight people made it a joke.

Divorces make it a joke? Not like a joke it will be when man is legal to marry his cow, or woman is legal to marry her dog. After all, that's the path we are currently on.

But a man CAN'T marry his cow. So, you're talking about something that doesn't exist in order to avoid talking about what does exist.

Marriage is a joke, it's meaningless except for some tax breaks like with inheritance laws. As in institution it's a joke.

Couples getting married early just so they can **** because someone's filled their head with this notion that you shouldn't sleep with someone until you're married, then they get married and it doesn't last because they got married for the wrong reasons.

And do you know one person that's ever done that perhaps besides your grandparents????

Why shouldn't a person be able to marry his cow? After all, he shouldn't be denied the benefits that married homosexual couples get. We're talking about liberty here, aren't we? What.....you don't want to see our government sanction a man marrying a cow because it crosses "your" line of what marriage should be? You said it yourself, marriage is a joke anyway, right?

Yeah I do. I've known people who got married as virgins, and married quite young at that.

Why shouldn't someone be able to marry cow?

Consent, that's the main answer. A cow can't consent to marry. Just like children can't consent to marry. It's quite simple.

Last I heard, gay people were able to say yes.

Last I heard, animals have no rights. Consent? Does a cow consent to being penned up all day and night long? Does a cow consent to being taken out and butchered up for it's meat? Does a cow consent to being milked?

Apples and oranges.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

2nd Posting of this Challenge:

... Why shouldn't someone be able to marry cow?

Consent, that's the main answer. A cow can't consent to marry. Just like children can't consent to marry. It's quite simple.

Last I heard, gay people were able to say yes.

LOL!

Isn't it wild how 'children' always enter into the equation somehow, with these people?

Now Reader, watch this closely...

Frigidweirdo, the APA issued a white paper; now over a decade back, wherein they 'found' that 'some children may actually benefit from a sexual relationship with a loving, caring adult', further concluding that children may well be suited to sexual consent much earlier than had been previously understood.

Now... you being a professed sexual deviant; meaning you're a person who bears little self control over whatever sexual urges flitter through your head... where do you stand in the Left's drive to defend the 14th amendment rights of a child to equal protection before the law with regard to their means to consent to sex with adults, given the growing scientific evidence that children are often capable of sexual consent, thus legalizing adults to pursue children for loving, caring relationships?

(Reader, I've asked this question of every confessed sexual deviant on this board and hundreds of others on dozens of other boards, over two decades.

And without exception... they cannot answer the challenge without qualifying their response, around legalities. Which is to say that they're only consistent problem with adults pursuing children for sex, is that it is ILLEGAL. )