Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
661

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
Now, more seriously

I have absolutely no hate for gay men. I just happen to prefer bisexual men.
If they insist to suck my balls while i fuck their girlfriend, i won’t always refuse. I simply won’t reciprocate.

I’m getting ready to get married. To a woman. I’ll keep Push up to date, he is REALLY interested in me. Thankfully despite his love affair he doesn’t support us getting married. Thankfully.

The rules for marriage have changed many times throughout history in many different cultures. Now all the sudden we shouldn’t change those rules? Why not? Even if the MAJORITY (not the fucking minority) of citizens agree that we SHOULD change those rules? You know other cultures have lifted bans on interracial and interfaith marriages as well. Do you oppose those moves? That was changing a social institution to give a privilege to a minority.

Soon enough the minority will be handcuffing the majority on the issue. The majority of people WANT change. This is not going anywhere but more and more and more towards support. So in 10 years if 70% of people support change don’t do it? 80% in 20 years? Why not? The institution has been changed NUMEROUS times throughout history already.

http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries
[/quote]

Not a single ounce of this is relevant at all to the conversation that should be going on.

Same-ex marriage isn’t about discrimination of a minority, because it isn’t discrimination of a minority. You can’t compare it to inter-racial marriage. ANd any way marriage has changed outside the bounds of the American government is irrelevant as well.

The most basic bareboned question being asked is: should two people of the same sex be able to enter into the legal contract that is government recognized marriage?

Seeing as every single person in America is one of the two sexes, there is no minority, and there is therefore no discrimination.

Government recognized marriage has nothign to do with love, zero to do with sex. In no way, shape or form do either of those matter, what-so-ever to the government. What matters is two concenting adults that aren’t closely related wish to enter into a contract. No where on the contract I signed did I have to tell Uncle Sam I was in love, or who or what I prefered to have sex with.

People like to attach the “gay movement” lable to this issue because it gives them some sort of moral high ground and then they can talk about their “gay friends” just like their “black friends”. But in the real world, sexual attraction has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

That said, I see no reason why two people of the same sex shouldn’t be allowed to check “married filing joint” or be on each other’s health insurance. Because let’s face it, that is all this is about. Because if two people wanted, they could find a church that would marry them, and they could live like a married couple, and it doesn’t matter what the government thinks.

This is about benefits, and money… It is about property when you boil it down. Pretty silly. And I’m going to lol hard when two women who are on trial for murder marry so they don’t have to testify…

662

[quote]countingbeans wrote:<<< This is about benefits, and money… It is about property when you boil it down. >>>[/quote]No it isn’t. It’s about demanding the institutionalized moral legitimization of a perversion of the created order of God. All the rest is just a means to that end.

663

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
Now, more seriously

I have absolutely no hate for gay men. I just happen to prefer bisexual men.
If they insist to suck my balls while i fuck their girlfriend, i won’t always refuse. I simply won’t reciprocate.

I’m getting ready to get married. To a woman. I’ll keep Push up to date, he is REALLY interested in me. Thankfully despite his love affair he doesn’t support us getting married. Thankfully.

The rules for marriage have changed many times throughout history in many different cultures. Now all the sudden we shouldn’t change those rules? Why not? Even if the MAJORITY (not the fucking minority) of citizens agree that we SHOULD change those rules? You know other cultures have lifted bans on interracial and interfaith marriages as well. Do you oppose those moves? That was changing a social institution to give a privilege to a minority.

Soon enough the minority will be handcuffing the majority on the issue. The majority of people WANT change. This is not going anywhere but more and more and more towards support. So in 10 years if 70% of people support change don’t do it? 80% in 20 years? Why not? The institution has been changed NUMEROUS times throughout history already.

http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries
[/quote]

Not a single ounce of this is relevant at all to the conversation that should be going on.

Same-ex marriage isn’t about discrimination of a minority, because it isn’t discrimination of a minority. You can’t compare it to inter-racial marriage. ANd any way marriage has changed outside the bounds of the American government is irrelevant as well.

The most basic bareboned question being asked is: should two people of the same sex be able to enter into the legal contract that is government recognized marriage?

Seeing as every single person in America is one of the two sexes, there is no minority, and there is therefore no discrimination.

Government recognized marriage has nothign to do with love, zero to do with sex. In no way, shape or form do either of those matter, what-so-ever to the government. What matters is two concenting adults that aren’t closely related wish to enter into a contract. No where on the contract I signed did I have to tell Uncle Sam I was in love, or who or what I prefered to have sex with.

People like to attach the “gay movement” lable to this issue because it gives them some sort of moral high ground and then they can talk about their “gay friends” just like their “black friends”. But in the real world, sexual attraction has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

That said, I see no reason why two people of the same sex shouldn’t be allowed to check “married filing joint” or be on each other’s health insurance. Because let’s face it, that is all this is about. Because if two people wanted, they could find a church that would marry them, and they could live like a married couple, and it doesn’t matter what the government thinks.

This is about benefits, and money… It is about property when you boil it down. Pretty silly. And I’m going to lol hard when two women who are on trial for murder marry so they don’t have to testify…
[/quote]

That’s a nice little rant and all but:

So we shouldn’t recognize two people of the same sex because…

…

I’m waiting for it.

At least T has the backass, but the Bible excuse. I guess he feels more correct because he has “God friends?”

664

I don’t “feel” anything, nevermind “more” of it. The sexual union of members of the same gender of the only member of God’s creation bearing His image is the direct result of brokenness in sin. I don’t say much on this topic because it is inevitable that a nation that once to a significant but imperfect degree honored God, and is now hell bent on expunging Him, would end up right where we’re going.

The most ironic biblical fact of all is that God says that giving us what we want IS His judgment. The very success of the homosexual agenda is itself the sentence of the God it offends. He always gets His way. This country is dying fast and disorder like has never been seen on this continent IS coming. (not to be confused with the end of the world) I can’t wait. What a glorious church He will have then when she has been purified in the fires of earnest persecution. History does indeed repeat itself.

665

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:<<< This is about benefits, and money… It is about property when you boil it down. >>>[/quote]No it isn’t. It’s about demanding the institutionalized moral legitimization of a perversion of the created order of God. All the rest is just a means to that end.
[/quote]

If the arguement before SCOTUS was about forcing religous institutions to perform/recognize the marriage, you would have a point.

That isn’t what they are trying to do.

666

[quote]H factor wrote:

That’s a nice little rant and all but:

So we shouldn’t recognize two people of the same sex because…

…

I’m waiting for it.

[/quote]

You might want to read what I wrote for what it says, not what you want it to say.

No where did I say the federal government shouldn’t recognize the wishes of two people of the same sex to enter the contract as a “marriage”. In fact I pretty much said the opposite.

668

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

That’s a nice little rant and all but:

So we shouldn’t recognize two people of the same sex because…

…

I’m waiting for it.

[/quote]

You might want to read what I wrote for what it says, not what you want it to say.

No where did I say the federal government shouldn’t recognize the wishes of two people of the same sex to enter the contract as a “marriage”. In fact I pretty much said the opposite. [/quote]

Exactly why I said I’m waiting for it…

As in I keep waiting for a good reason from people.

It was in agreement beans. As in I’m still waiting on someone to bring a good reason in here yet.

The best we got so far is the Bible and you know what this leads to. Not real convincing to me.

670

Push, as it sits, the states require a license to marry and this effects property rights. Denying the license based on same-sex gender denies these property rights and DOMA really fucks people where states actually legally allow them to marry. I agree that states should get out of the marriage business altogether, but once states are in it, and once property rights are bundled together with a system called marriage, the Libertarian platform calls for the government to grant a license to two consenting adults regardless of gender.

671

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

Section 1.3 "Personal Relationships":
    Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
Section 3.5 "Rights and Discrimination":
    We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.[/quote]

[/quote]

Exactly. Did you even read what you copied and pasted, birdbrain?

It says, “Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.”

Based on that, if you are going to toe the Libertarian line, you can’t be advocating for MORE government involvement in marital contracts – you should be advocating for less! Or none at all (which is what the above literally means)!

If your stance, chump, was consistent with LP ideals you’d be wanting NO government sanction of either homo or hetero marriages.

Also, Sec. 3.5 is irrelevant in this regard in that marriage is not a “right.”[/quote]

Seriously are you trolling?

That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying Push. WHY should the government be involved? You want the government to make these decisions, I don’t. I don’t think the government should have anything to do with porn, or strip clubs, or gambling, or if two gay people decide to profess love to one another in a contract.

673

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Push, as it sits, the states require a license to marry and this effects property rights. Denying the license based on same-sex gender denies these property rights and DOMA really fucks people where states actually legally allow them to marry. I agree that states should get out of the marriage business altogether, but once states are in it, and once property rights are bundled together with a system called marriage, the Libertarian platform calls for the government to grant a license to two consenting adults regardless of gender. [/quote]

I’m at the point where I’m convinced he’s just making up shit to make up shit. No one can miss the point that much.

678

A few things :
-miscegenation bans were not “social institutions”.
the social institution here is marriage.
Miscegenation bans were added to it. Then they ultimately got abolisehd.
The institution itself, its basic definition, didn’t change at any point of this process.

-abolition of anti-miscegenation laws allowed people of every race to marry people of every race. That’s a lot a people.
It’s a benefit for the vast majority of people. Not for a minority.

-As far as i know it, racial endogamy (the “goal” behind anti-miscegenation law) was never explicitly a social institution in America.
and if it was the case, then it definetely should NOT have been changed for the sole benefit of a minority.
Abolished by the will of “we the people” and for the benefits of the res publica, maybe. But that’s not the same thing.

679

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I’m at the point where I’m convinced he’s just making up shit to make up shit. No one can miss the point that much.

[/quote]

You’re at the point you almost always are at, that of your hysterical emotionalism presiding over sound, rational thinking.

You are the squealing pig of PWI. Always offended. Always offensive.
[/quote]

Not bad even for you bud. Slippery slope fallacy followed up by a call for rational thinking. Saying let’s be rational after clearly being irrational. Unintentional comedy at its finest. And then another you’re a farm animal reference. Just another post in the life of Push. Can’t wait to see what you turn me into next.

680

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Push, as it sits, the states require a license to marry and this effects property rights. Denying the license based on same-sex gender denies these property rights and DOMA really fucks people where states actually legally allow them to marry. I agree that states should get out of the marriage business altogether, but once states are in it, and once property rights are bundled together with a system called marriage, the Libertarian platform calls for the government to grant a license to two consenting adults regardless of gender. [/quote]

“Once states are in it?” States have always been in it.[/quote]

Yup, which is why they should allow gays to marry or get out of it.