Utah man fasting for nullification

[Moonglow]

It's a pretty sick and disturbed mind that would prefer starvation over the government keeping its nose out of people's private lives.

I'm surprised he's not eating only at Chick-fil-A.

Or suckin' down Duck Dynasty wine for his sacrament. Blood of Christ, man that guy was loaded.

 

[SwimExpert]

Are you serious? How can you not see that empowering the government to license (and by doing so charge a license fee) to more people regulates people and relationships they didn't previously regulate?

Okay, now you're really getting ridiculous. People spend tens of thousands of dollars on weddings, and you want to say that a $25-50 administrative fee is the problem?

 

[Coyote]

What are you talking about? Gay marriage is about government getting involved in the private lives of people. Right now, homosexuals can enter into any relationship they want to for as long as they want without any interference with the government. Gay marriage gives the government power to regulate same sex relationships. It creates more regulation for same sex relationships. It gives the government power to determine when it sanctions the relationship and when the relationship is disolved.

I don't understand how that could be.

The government used to say:
Heterosexual marriage is ok.

Now it says:
Heterosexual marriage is ok.
Homosexual marriage is ok.

There is no difference in the amount of regulation.

Are you serious? How can you not see that empowering the government to license (and by doing so charge a license fee) to more people regulates people and relationships they didn't previously regulate? How exactly is the government saying people end relationships without their approval not the government regulating more people?

You are saying that by more people being allowed to marry - that increases the amount of regulation.

It doesn't.

The amount of "regulation" per person remains the same.

You could make the same argument by saying that the more our population increases - the more people are getting married - the more the government is regulating. That's silly.

Marriage is STILL marriage and it's only marriage that is being "regulated" - minimally I might add.

This is a silly argument.

If you truly want the government not to say you can or can't do something, then don't demand that they approve and regulate it.

If they didn't what would we have?

Would interracial marriages be allowed?

Would a basic civil right, such as marriage, be determined by popular will on a state by state basis? Would it be regulated by religious institutions?

Seriously - this is a minutae of "regulation".

 

[Avatar4321]

Are you serious? How can you not see that empowering the government to license (and by doing so charge a license fee) to more people regulates people and relationships they didn't previously regulate?

Okay, now you're really getting ridiculous. People spend tens of thousands of dollars on weddings, and you want to say that a $25-50 administrative fee is the problem?

Did I say it was a problem?

No. I said it creates more government regulation. And that's hardly the end all of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Avatar: "the government regulates same sex relationships gets the government more involved in same sex relationships. Meanwhile, right now gay couples can determine how long the relationship is"

Your civil and religious liberties are not infringed, Avatar.

 

[Flopper]

It's a pretty sick and disturbed mind that would prefer starvation over the government keeping its nose out of people's private lives.

What are you talking about? Gay marriage is about government getting involved in the private lives of people. Right now, homosexuals can enter into any relationship they want to for as long as they want without any interference with the government. Gay marriage gives the government power to regulate same sex relationships. It creates more regulation for same sex relationships. It gives the government power to determine when it sanctions the relationship and when the relationship is disolved.

Yes, government is involved in a married person's life but it's also involved in an unmarried couple's life in regard to taxes, social security, immigration, family leave, etc. Whether the couple is married or not, government is involved in their lives. If government didn't assign certain benefits to married couples, then I would agree with you but it doesn't. It regulates both married and unmarried couples.

 

[Plasmaball]

And that right there is why people like you should be kept from power. Because you can't help but abuse it.

abuse it? what drugs are you on? you will be pushed out just like the segregationists were as well. You dumbfuck.

Last time I checked, The Democrats still exist.

sure i guess you can get more stupid!

 

[Nyvin]

What are you talking about? Gay marriage is about government getting involved in the private lives of people. Right now, homosexuals can enter into any relationship they want to for as long as they want without any interference with the government. Gay marriage gives the government power to regulate same sex relationships. It creates more regulation for same sex relationships. It gives the government power to determine when it sanctions the relationship and when the relationship is disolved.

reversing the argument doesnt make it true.


anyways who cares.

Clearly you do or you wouldn't have said something.

And no matter what position you take it's absolutely true that demanding the government regulates same sex relationships gets the government more involved in same sex relationships. Meanwhile, right now gay couples can determine how long the relationship is, what they call it, when and if it will end.

So please, stop pretending gay marriage is about getting government out of the relationship.

That's ridiculous. People get married by choice, not by the government forcing them to. What kind of idiot would buy your argument here?? You think gays don't "want" same sex marriage?

 

[National Socialist]

If the SC said homosexual marriage is left up to the states how is it that the PEOPLE of the state of Utah voted on this 10 years ago and overwhelmingly voted against allowing it how 1 activist liberal pro ****** judge can do this. If the SC is going to go by its own ruling then they should stop the "marriages" there. Also this man's death if he dies is on the hands of that judge and he should be arrested for it as well.

 

[Moonglow]

The past history of how people treated gays was most cruel.
They deserve what they are getting now. It has been a long struggle to an oppressed group.

 

[National Socialist]

Faggots shouldn't expect their degeneracy to be welcomed. Just like race mixing,homosexuality is another degeneracy that must be shoved down the throats of the American people,pushed in the media,books,schools etc. Attack the young with the brainwashing bullshit that's how you change opinion.

 

[Publius1787]

Utah man fasting to stop same sex marriages - 4Utah.com

I am going to preface my comments by saying I completely believe in fasting. i believe that fasting, like Gandhi engaged it can change things. I also believe there is power in fasting for our daily struggles.

With that said, I find this incredibly foolish. Nullification has never been considered a legitimate state policy in the history of the United States. Fasting for nullification to be used for the first time in US history is not a prudent.

Gandhi's use of fasting was not to change laws. He fasted to get people to stop being violent. He fasted to change people's hearts. Moreover, Gandhi was already a well beloved person. A random stranger doing a fast to change people would never have the same effect.

Also, Christ taught those of us with Christian backgrounds not to fast publically. We are supposed to fast in secret not to be praised in the world. I could see a small group of people fasting for change, but public fasting just isn't something Christians should be doing in most situations. (Obviously, inspiration of the Spirit is the general rule).

I think perhaps we should pray for this young man to see that other methods would be more prudent if he wants to accomplish a goal.

the real Gandih [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6voAW_Go5Y]Penn and Teller - "Bullshit - Holier than Thou" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Knightfall]

I suppose OP's thoughts are kind towards this apparently misguided man, but I can't help but think that this guy isn't going to last long in either his resolve or his fasting.

Does anybody know what the current legal action is for people who refuse to eat? I know during the prohibition era, women who refused to eat were force fed. Same thing with the prisoners in Guantanamo. Is that how it works these days with people who refuse to eat?

I say if someone of sound mind chooses to die, let 'em die.

I don't understand how that could be.

The government used to say:
Heterosexual marriage is ok.

Now it says:
Heterosexual marriage is ok.
Homosexual marriage is ok.

There is no difference in the amount of regulation.

I have some thoughts tangent to this.

I don't believe the government should have any role in regulating marriage. The government's role is to protect citizen's rights. In respect to marriage which should be nothing more than the commitment of two people to each other, the legal responsibility of the government should be to protect the interests of the citizens who are married. This includes issue such as inheritance, child custody and power of attorney. In all these cases, it should be a simple matter to take care of this stuff. All you should have to do is make a motorized document saying, "If I die or am incapacitated, this is what should happen to me, my loved ones and my stuff." That's it. You need nothing more to the process. If I want my sister or my gay lover to get all my stuff when I die, then that is who should get it. The governments only role is to see that my will is followed through.

However, it's not that simple because the government gives special benefits to the married. (tax breaks, streamlined inheritance rights, preferred treatment in legal battles over property or custody) If I want, for instance, my son or mother or girlfriend or lesbian lover to inherit all my cash when I die, then that's who should get it, but the government has set up rules as to can get the money tax free and who can't. That is where the trouble is. Drop the discrimination not only against gay people but also against the straight people who want their children to inherit their estate or the unmarried gay people who want their boyfriend or girlfriend to inherit. The government should treat all people equally under the law, but since we allow them to decide who can inherit without penalty, people are being treated unequally from the word go.

Let people decide for themselves what marriage is and keep the government out of it. Make a simple document saying what you want to be done with your stuff in case of your death or with you in case of incapacitation, get it notarized, and be done with it. There's no reason for the government to give certain classes of people special benefits. Instead of adding married homosexuals to the role of the elites, let's get rid of the favoritism altogether.

I'm sure I could have made that argument more structured, but it was from the hip, so please forgive any rambling.

Yes, government is involved in a married person's life but it's also involved in an unmarried couple's life in regard to taxes, social security, immigration, family leave, etc. Whether the couple is married or not, government is involved in their lives. If government didn't assign certain benefits to married couples, then I would agree with you but it doesn't. It regulates both married and unmarried couples.

I'm not fully taking Avatar's side here because I have not read enough of his views to see if I agree with him, but in regards to giving married people benefits, the government absolutely does. According to Human Rights Campaign, the government gives 1,138 benefits to married couples.

I've no point beyond that. Just keeping things factual.

If the SC said homosexual marriage is left up to the states how is it that the PEOPLE of the state of Utah voted on this 10 years ago and overwhelmingly voted against allowing it how 1 activist liberal pro ****** judge can do this. If the SC is going to go by its own ruling then they should stop the "marriages" there. Also this man's death if he dies is on the hands of that judge and he should be arrested for it as well.

How is the judge responsible for a man choosing to kill himself. If I chose to starve myself unless every stoplight it torn down, I wouldn't blame anybody.

For the sake of clarity, you are an actual National Socialist, right? You aren't trying to mock it, are you? I've just wondered that since I first saw you.

 

[National Socialist]

I suppose OP's thoughts are kind towards this apparently misguided man, but I can't help but think that this guy isn't going to last long in either his resolve or his fasting.

Does anybody know what the current legal action is for people who refuse to eat? I know during the prohibition era, women who refused to eat were force fed. Same thing with the prisoners in Guantanamo. Is that how it works these days with people who refuse to eat?

I say if someone of sound mind chooses to die, let 'em die.

I don't understand how that could be.

The government used to say:
Heterosexual marriage is ok.

Now it says:
Heterosexual marriage is ok.
Homosexual marriage is ok.

There is no difference in the amount of regulation.

I have some thoughts tangent to this.

I don't believe the government should have any role in regulating marriage. The government's role is to protect citizen's rights. In respect to marriage which should be nothing more than the commitment of two people to each other, the legal responsibility of the government should be to protect the interests of the citizens who are married. This includes issue such as inheritance, child custody and power of attorney. In all these cases, it should be a simple matter to take care of this stuff. All you should have to do is make a motorized document saying, "If I die or am incapacitated, this is what should happen to me, my loved ones and my stuff." That's it. You need nothing more to the process. If I want my sister or my gay lover to get all my stuff when I die, then that is who should get it. The governments only role is to see that my will is followed through.

However, it's not that simple because the government gives special benefits to the married. (tax breaks, streamlined inheritance rights, preferred treatment in legal battles over property or custody) If I want, for instance, my son or mother or girlfriend or lesbian lover to inherit all my cash when I die, then that's who should get it, but the government has set up rules as to can get the money tax free and who can't. That is where the trouble is. Drop the discrimination not only against gay people but also against the straight people who want their children to inherit their estate or the unmarried gay people who want their boyfriend or girlfriend to inherit. The government should treat all people equally under the law, but since we allow them to decide who can inherit without penalty, people are being treated unequally from the word go.

Let people decide for themselves what marriage is and keep the government out of it. Make a simple document saying what you want to be done with your stuff in case of your death or with you in case of incapacitation, get it notarized, and be done with it. There's no reason for the government to give certain classes of people special benefits. Instead of adding married homosexuals to the role of the elites, let's get rid of the favoritism altogether.

I'm sure I could have made that argument more structured, but it was from the hip, so please forgive any rambling.

Yes, government is involved in a married person's life but it's also involved in an unmarried couple's life in regard to taxes, social security, immigration, family leave, etc. Whether the couple is married or not, government is involved in their lives. If government didn't assign certain benefits to married couples, then I would agree with you but it doesn't. It regulates both married and unmarried couples.

I'm not fully taking Avatar's side here because I have not read enough of his views to see if I agree with him, but in regards to giving married people benefits, the government absolutely does. According to Human Rights Campaign, the government gives 1,138 benefits to married couples.

I've no point beyond that. Just keeping things factual.

If the SC said homosexual marriage is left up to the states how is it that the PEOPLE of the state of Utah voted on this 10 years ago and overwhelmingly voted against allowing it how 1 activist liberal pro ****** judge can do this. If the SC is going to go by its own ruling then they should stop the "marriages" there. Also this man's death if he dies is on the hands of that judge and he should be arrested for it as well.

How is the judge responsible for a man choosing to kill himself. If I chose to starve myself unless every stoplight it torn down, I wouldn't blame anybody.

For the sake of clarity, you are an actual National Socialist, right? You aren't trying to mock it, are you? I've just wondered that since I first saw you.

The judge is responsible because he has usurped the power of the people to vote and control their own affairs and put his opinion above everyone else's about homosexual marriage. The man is doing the right thing and the judge did the wrong thing. The SC already ruled its up to the states. Well Utah already voted on homosexual marriage and they don't want it. Yes I am a NS. Not mocking it. I consider myself a Social Nationalist which is what the NSDAP was supposed to be but the socialist wing of the party was eradicated under Hitler. Otto Strasser and his Brother were the main pushers behind it.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's a pretty sick and disturbed mind that would prefer starvation over the government keeping its nose out of people's private lives.

Probably because the government on behalf of gays sticks its nose in everybody's private lives.

 

[Flopper]

Faggots shouldn't expect their degeneracy to be welcomed. Just like race mixing,homosexuality is another degeneracy that must be shoved down the throats of the American people,pushed in the media,books,schools etc. Attack the young with the brainwashing bullshit that's how you change opinion.

Spoken like a true Nazi

 

[National Socialist]

Faggots shouldn't expect their degeneracy to be welcomed. Just like race mixing,homosexuality is another degeneracy that must be shoved down the throats of the American people,pushed in the media,books,schools etc. Attack the young with the brainwashing bullshit that's how you change opinion.

Spoken like a true Nazi

How do you know?

 

[Flopper]

Faggots shouldn't expect their degeneracy to be welcomed. Just like race mixing,homosexuality is another degeneracy that must be shoved down the throats of the American people,pushed in the media,books,schools etc. Attack the young with the brainwashing bullshit that's how you change opinion.

Spoken like a true Nazi

How do you know?

By your name and your post.

 

[bodecea]

Clearly you do or you wouldn't have said something.

And no matter what position you take it's absolutely true that demanding the government regulates same sex relationships gets the government more involved in same sex relationships. Meanwhile, right now gay couples can determine how long the relationship is, what they call it, when and if it will end.

So please, stop pretending gay marriage is about getting government out of the relationship.

but zero benefits. we are an equal na...wtf this doesnt matter, you lost get over it.

Fights not over.

If you are getting married for benefits given to you from the government then your marriage is doomed to failure.

So all legal marriages are doomed to failure?

 

[National Socialist]

Spoken like a true Nazi

How do you know?

By your name and your post.

Ah. I was assuming you knew other NS...